Where was Adam?

[Liz]

Forgive me if this topic has been talked about before.

Genesis 3:6 - And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

E.G. White says that Eve wandered away from Adam.

So does the Bible mean that Adam was literally right there with her? Or that he was just in the garden with her?

Did Ellen White see this in vision, and that's why she said that Eve wandered away? In other words, how did Sis. White "know" that Eve wandered away?

I would really like some clarity on this.

[thx4mercy]

I don't know how much weight you put in the Bible commentaries, but I thought that page 231 of Vol. 1 really gives a good explanation of the difference in the wording of the Bible and EGW.

"The statement that 'she gave also to her husband with her,' does not imply that he had been with her all the time, standing mute at the scene of temptation. Instead, she gave him of the fruit upon rejoining him that he might eat it 'with her' and thus...."

But I agree, the way the Bible words it, it sure sounds like he was standing right there with her at time of temptation.

[CoAspen]

Interesting question! As to where Adam was depends of whether or not one believes EGW was given a vision or word from God. In my mind, I'm not so sure as to where the location of Adam was is all that important, because he was tempted just as EVE was. They both made a conscious choice with no one to blame but themselves. Freedom of choice is very powerful!

[Gail]

That would depend... On how big the garden was and how far away Eve could be from Adam and still undergo the temptation experience without any interference from him. To my mind it could have happened while Adam was on the other side of the property, or away from the tree but still within a stone's throw.

[Tom Wetmore]

Given the direct wording of Genesis I am inclined to accept this as the reality of what happened. When it says she ate and then gave it to Adam who was with her I see no reason to believe otherwise. Why would the writer of Genesis need to add, "with her" when there were only two people in the entire garden, the man and the woman God had created. Saying she gave it to adam ( the man), period, with nothing more, would have meant the same thing as to say or imply with any context so broad as within the garden. That proximity was indicated by use of the word "with" suggest a need by the author to show his immediate close proximity. There is zero indication in the text that Adam and Eve were separated at any point in the narrative, or for that matter anywhere else in Scripture.

As for idea that Eve had wandered away, this was not a new idea presented by Ellen White, and as elaborated in the SDA Bible Commentary. Bible commentators long before her had said the very same thing, even with very similar wording (Matthew's commentary for example, which I believe EGW had in her library). Two centuries earlier than EGW, Milton elaborated at length not this wandering away theme in "Paradise Lost", also a work that EGW had in her library and was undoubtedly quite familiar. This was Church teaching for many centuries that intwines itself with some really strange ideas about Eve and women in general as being weak minded and less able to withstand temptation than men. I think it more likely that EGW reflects the commonly held belief of her time based on reputable Bible commentators.

I know that is not a popular view among Adventists, but it seems more defensible to me. And it does not really conflict with the manner and process of inspiration as EGW herself explained. I don't see it as a crucial issue in the immediate context of the temptation story. However, the problem is in the implications that are spun from it that denigrate women as weak and men as more capable of withstanding and seeing through the clever deception of the devil. That was not a point she makes.

[Green Cochoa]

Given the direct wording of Genesis I am inclined to accept this as the reality of what happened. When it says she ate and then gave it to Adam who was with her I see no reason to believe otherwise. Why would the writer of Genesis need to add, "with her" when there were only two people in the entire garden, the man and the woman God had created. Saying she gave it to adam ( the man), period, with nothing more, would have meant the same thing as to say or imply with any context so broad as within the garden. That proximity was indicated by use of the word "with" suggest a need by the author to show his immediate close proximity. There is zero indication in the text that Adam and Eve were separated at any point in the narrative, or for that matter anywhere else in Scripture.

As for idea that Eve had wandered away, this was not a new idea presented by Ellen White, and as elaborated in the SDA Bible Commentary. Bible commentators long before her had said the very same thing, even with very similar wording (Matthew's commentary for example, which I believe EGW had in her library). Two centuries earlier than EGW, Milton elaborated at length not this wandering away theme in "Paradise Lost", also a work that EGW had in her library and was undoubtedly quite familiar. This was Church teaching for many centuries that intwines itself with some really strange ideas about Eve and women in general as being weak minded and less able to withstand temptation than men. I think it more likely that EGW reflects the commonly held belief of her time based on reputable Bible commentators.

I know that is not a popular view among Adventists, but it seems more defensible to me. And it does not really conflict with the manner and process of inspiration as EGW herself explained. I don't see it as a crucial issue in the immediate context of the temptation story. However, the problem is in the implications that are spun from it that denigrate women as weak and men as more capable of withstanding and seeing through the clever deception of the devil. That was not a point she makes.

[phkrause]

Interesting question indeed! As Tom mentions, if you or anyone for that matter, reads that passage, its hard not to accept or believe that Adam was right there. This is, at least for me, one of the reasons that God had EGW write, to explain passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand. Its difficult to understand in the fact as to why would Adam, if he were right there and knowing what God had said to him earlier about Satan, have let Eve talk with this snake/Satan and not jump right in and took her away. So for me, I would've had a problem with that, but that's where EGWs writings about the Bible make sense. So when she says "I saw in vision," and if I accept the fact that she is called of God, I now have my answer that I've always been looking for. That's my few cents worth on this.

[Green Cochoa]

Though the Genesis account of the temptation leaves some doubt as to just where Adam was when the serpent beguiled Eve, Paul adds some information that makes it clear that Adam was not deceived. If he were present he would have not let Eve converse with the serpent.

2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Mrs. White's account which she said she "saw" clears up the matter and explains why, though not deceived, he partook of the fruit when Eve offered it to him.

It seems that Adam chose Eve over his Creator.

Jackson,

Well spoken.

That's good corroborating information, but it falls into the same trap of typical Adventist "exegesis" in which a passage is "explained" by side-stepping it and going somewhere else where the Bible appears to say something different. It's a bit like answering the Baptists' question about the "secret rapture" (Matthew 24, Luke 17) by saying, "Oh! It can't be what you think, because over here in 1 Thessalonians it says every eye will see Him." Such a response still leaves a big question mark dangling over the original passage in question, which did not get a satisfactory explanation.

I appreciate the texts you brought forward, and believe that they do indeed add to this discussion, but I believe we Adventists need to be more careful about answering the primary focus of the questions that we are asked. In this case, the two words "with her" are the source of the confusion. We need to be able to explain those two words in a way that matches the rest of the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Tom Wetmore]

I have always found it a curious observation that Adam certainly couldn't have been there at the tree because if he had been he certainly wouldn't have remained silent and wouldn't have let Eve be deceived. She was more easily fooled because, well you know women… That seems to be more of an assumption of course because the Biblical record is silent. But it also assumes that the man was wiser, or more morally stalwart and stronger willed to overcome the tempter's deceit. That has carried through to attitudes toward women and their roles in the church, suggesting that they are not reliable spiritual and moral leaders, because after all Eve set that in their genes now and forevermore. (Read Milton's Paradise Lost and some of the writing of the early church fathers and you will find I am by no means overstating the deeply embedded tradition.) But really, is that a genuine and consistent difference between men and women? In my own experience I have found most women to have been more likely to show more moral backbone than most men. And in a surprising situation I have known as many women to speak up as men remain silent.

Curiously some of what has been said here, suggesting the meaning of with is on a spiritual plain rather than the physical does help resolve the question of why Adam didn't man up and rescue Eve from the temptation of the snake. To be spiritually "with" would suggest a degree of harmony, unity, or agreement. Are you with me so far? On that level had he been physically present or not was of little significance since he was "with" her or in unity. They were one. He responded no differently than shebecause he was with her. In that state of mind, he would have been less likely as one in agreement with her to speak up or question what was happening.

[CoAspen]

Which brings to mind....if Adam 'willfully' sinned and Eve was 'deceived', which had the greater culpability?

[Green Cochoa]

In the end, CoAspen, perhaps their culpability was about equal. Eve doubted the truth of God's words to them. Adam doubted God's ability to make a satisfactory substitute for Eve.

Eve sinned because she wanted the fruit, and its accompanying "higher knowledge."

Adam sinned because he loved Eve.

Is it worse to sin for a piece of forbidden fruit? or to sin out of love to one's spouse?

It really doesn't matter. Either way, sin is sin. To sin by eating the fruit was about as trivial a thing as the test could be, and therefore, their sin in indulging was so much the greater. Had God made the test a very difficult one, we might reason that their sin was inevitable, and that God had not been fair. But they had absolutely no need to eat that fruit. They had everything they needed for life and happiness without it. This makes their fall so much the more egregious.

Yes, Adam knew what he was doing when he sinned, whereas Eve did not. But being ignorant did not save her. She should not have been ignorant. Her sin was just as inexcusable as Adam's--and it is a lesson for all of us, for we can also sin through ignorance and be culpable for it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Kevin H]

This is not a point which would upset Mrs. White. She said that her job is NOT to answer questions of exegeses, that is our job. Her job was to teach about not giving up the millerite experience, to help form the church, to form our education and medical work, to teach us the Great Controversy philosophy, then (when she was old, frail and dying and loosing the last battle) of trying to give us a balanced view of inspiration.

On a similar topic Mrs. White would write two ways: Whether or not the serpent handed Eve the fruit, or if Eve reached out and picked it. She would draw lessons from both possibilities. She did not see this as a conflict. Since she felt that it could have gone either way with how Eve got the fruit, so I do not see her as having any problem with the two possibilities for this text.

[Guest arnie]

The Bible says Adam was with Eve at the forbidden tree. Ellen makes a big deal of the fact that he wasn't. Who is right? The Bible account, of course. It's just that simple.Everything else is speculation.

[Green Cochoa]

The Bible says Adam was with Eve at the forbidden tree. Ellen makes a big deal of the fact that he wasn't. Who is right? The Bible account, of course. It's just that simple.Everything else is speculation.

Where does the Bible say this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Windsor]

This is indeed a rehashed topic. The surface readers are left with doubt and, how do I put this delicately, those who are not the biggest fans of Ellen White rejoice at the conundrum this leaves. Here are a couple places, besides CA, where this verse has been discussed.

http://advindicate.com/articles/2044

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/08/31/was-adam-with-eve

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Forgive me if this topic has been talked about before. I would really like some clarity on this.

Liz gave her reasons for asking, lets not make assumptions about a person/persons reason for asking. Lets not be 'dogmatic' either way. People will interpret the story as they would like for it to be. Sometimes we go to great length to derive certain meanings instead of what the Bible is trying to show us. Is the 'who ate first' really what the story is all about or simply a narrative about the decision making of the story participants? The results are the same for both and both had different reasons for their decisions, neither correct. To make the story about who failed first or second or who had the greater sin or how that affected them later in life is really missing the narratives message. They sinned as a team!

[Green Cochoa]

This is not a point which would upset Mrs. White. She said that her job is NOT to answer questions of exegeses, that is our job. Her job was to teach about not giving up the millerite experience, to help form the church, to form our education and medical work, to teach us the Great Controversy philosophy, then (when she was old, frail and dying and loosing the last battle) of trying to give us a balanced view of inspiration.

On a similar topic Mrs. White would write two ways: Whether or not the serpent handed Eve the fruit, or if Eve reached out and picked it. She would draw lessons from both possibilities. She did not see this as a conflict. Since she felt that it could have gone either way with how Eve got the fruit, so I do not see her as having any problem with the two possibilities for this text.

[CoAspen]

Ah...I see...so for you it is all about which sin is worse and making sure of your interpretation for womens roles in life. I find some of your ..."It is noteworthy that when confronted by God , Eve blamed the serpent but Adam blamed Eve. If they were together and sinned as a team it would seem logical that both would have blamed the serpent."....logic rather tainted.

But Back to topic...

[CoAspen]

Liz,

Could you give us a little more on why you are seeking clarification? We may have wondered off the topic.

[Liz]

Liz,

Could you give us a little more on why you are seeking clarification? We may have wondered off the topic.

My parents are both die-hard Sis. White fans, I grew up with Sis. White, so I am NOT trying to discredit her in any way, shape or form. However, in *my* own personal walk, I came across this particular scripture, and it is just making me think, was Adam really there the whole time? I grew up with Sis. White's version of the account, that Eve wandered away. So now I am wondering, how did Sis. White "know" that Eve wandered away, was she in vision, did she just take the common sentiment of the day? Was it inspired or just her thoughts?

I put it on here, for discussion, because my parents view any sort of discussion or disagreement with Sis. White as heresy, so I've just agreed with them in order to keep peace and harmony, and I come here to see what others think and to see how far off base I am.

I really liked one of the answers that Adam was "with her" in spirit--as in they were going to sin together, a la Thelma and Louise.

I know that this isn't a salvation issue, and ultimately it doesn't matter, because the result is the same. I just wanted to hear other's thoughts, and I have really enjoyed everyone's input and well thought out answers.

[Tom Wetmore]

Thanks Liz for giving us context for your question. I too have come from a strong heritage of the word of Ellen White being unquestioned and Scriptural "understanding" simply being whatever she said it was. Her words were read and studied more thoroughly than the Scriptures of which she spoke. It wasn't until I read and studied Scripture first in its fullness, incuding searching into original language meanings, without first filtering it through EGW, just as she said to do, that I began to truly understand it better. And then reading EGW became the lesser light, but a helpful light nonetheless.

This is not to cast doubt on EGW or her considerable prophetic gift. It is keep all things in their proper perspective and taking her at her word that we should discover for ourselves and not to just take her word over Scripture. If she is not infallible and inerrant, then we should not check our brains at the door. Questioning her is not to doubt her prophetic gift. And that she has errors and changes in her own understanding simply confirm what she said about inspiration and her own human contribution to her work.

In considering what weight to give to the whole scenario of Eve wandering away from Adam and being alone at the tree, it would seem that special light given to EGW on the matter would be most evident if that idea was first expressed by her, or that it was not a view that was already commonly held. But the fact remains that it was not new light revealed to EGW. It had been the prevailing view of the Church for centuries before her. But it was not always the case. Revealing the accepted proximity of Adam can be seen in the artwork of the early Christian Church. Art played a teaching role to convey to the masses that couldn't read Scripture for themselves. The earliest artwork within a couple centuries of the NT Church showed Adam and Eve both standing before the tree together. Within a couple centuries the art showed Eve alone which coincided with the more harsh views of the Church fathers regarding women and some very strange teachings about the origin of sin.

[Green Cochoa]

Tom,

Both the Bible and Ellen White comprise the "lesser light." To be more specific, John refers to his book of Revelation particularly, and perhaps the entire Bible more generally, as "the spirit of prophecy." We have, as Adventists, misapplied that term to a narrower application of Ellen White only than is warranted.

Both the authors of the Bible and Mrs. White were inspired by God's Spirit, and 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, etc. all tell us that when a prophet writes under inspiration of God, the writings are scripture. Since they are inspired by the same Spirit, we can expect the same level of congruity with other inspired writings, such as the unity of the 66 books of the Bible demonstrate. There are, even in the Bible, some passages that appear to be in disagreement--but each of these differences, when they touch on doctrinal themes, can be seen to agree when studied carefully in their proper light. This is also true of Mrs. White's writings. There are what appear at the surface to be some contradictions, but when looked at more carefully, the contradictions disappear.

In this case, I believe Mrs. White and the Bible are teaching the same story with respect to Adam and Eve. The garden was large. They were together in it. Eve was with her husband in that garden. The Bible does not say that Eve was within sight of Adam while she conversed with the Snake. We have to be careful that we do not leap to unwarranted conclusions based on a cursory reading of the text. Assumptions are easy to come by. The real gems of scripture often require greater diligence in study to obtain. I believe this is God's way of making His truths more powerful and effective to us, because we value something more when we have to work harder for it. If gold were abundant and easily obtainable upon the surface of the earth, we would not value it. We value it because we have to dig and work hard to obtain a bit of it. So it is with God's truths. Some of the more precious ones have to be mined, while some lie on the surface within easy reach of all.

Liz, questions will always exist. Ultimately, we must be led to greater truths by following God's Spirit and making faith choices to believe the things that God has promised to us. I nearly lost faith entirely at one point in my life when I discovered, with the "help" of an under-cover anti-Ellen White website that purported to promote her writings, that one of her prophecies had "failed." In my understanding, I immediately knew that if a prophecy of hers had failed, she was a false prophet. But as her writings had brought me so much nearer to God, I nearly threw out God along with them. I was in great depression for nearly a month, almost entirely shipwrecked in faith. I didn't want to read any more of Mrs. White or the Bible, as I had great doubts about their validity. But finally, I went back to that "failed prophecy" and looked at it yet again. I read it in full context. But this time, I saw where the misrepresentation had come in. Mrs. White had quoted an angel, and a member of her church had applied its meaning to herself--which prophecy seemed to come truth for her, almost immediately. The assumption was then easy to make that the beginning of the prophecy and its end must be within Mrs. White's lifetime--but that is not what the angel had said. Assumptions can potentially cost us our life. Only faith in God's promises, including those which tell us that God does not lie, will help us ride out these dangerous doubtings. At that point, hope and faith began to revive in my heart as I saw where the misunderstanding had come from. I hope to never doubt again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

To say that the Bible is a lesser light is potentially quite dangerous, unless it is said in the context that the life and ministry of Christ is the greater light.

To claim that EGW was totally without error is more than she claimed:

Quote:

In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. his word is true, and in him is no variableness, or shadow of turning. I SM page 37

Quote:

. . . the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel,. . . I SM page 37

Was Adam next to Eve at the time she ate the fruit, or was he somewhere else in the garden?

I understand why some people believe that he Bible, in Genesis 3:6, teaches that Adam was next to Eve. If this is what the Bible is saying, one must accept it as truth and believe that EGW as wrong in what she said. The Bible is the standard by which one must determine truth.

It is also possible that the comments of the SDABC on this verse is the correct understanding.

Which is correct? I Do not believe that this is an important issue. Neither my faith in the Bible nor in the ministry of EGW is destroyed by the position that I take on this issue.

[Green Cochoa]

Yes, Gregory, Christ is the Source of all light, just as the "greater light" (sun) is the source of light to our planet. The Bible leads us to Christ. Jesus, in John 5:39, tells us so. He expressly says that the scriptures are what lead us to Him. Jesus is the "Greater Light" of the Bible, the One to Whom Mrs. White sought to lead our attention.

I understand why some people believe that he Bible, in Genesis 3:6, teaches that Adam was next to Eve. If this is what the Bible is saying, one must accept it as truth and believe that EGW as wrong in what she said. The Bible is the standard by which one must determine truth.

What you have said above is what is dangerous. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." If Mrs. White disagrees with the Bible, I would have to reject her as a prophet of God who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what she did.

Mrs. White does not contradict the Bible on this issue, so there is no need to entertain any doubtings or disputings over it. There is need, however, of "rightly dividing" the truth. No one can honor God, with their BIble in hand, in holding an erroneous opinion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[olger]

It is somewhat expected that those who view Bible mandates as culturally-conditioned would also tend to view the SOP as culturally conditioned. This assigns to us the luxury of picking and choosing what is applicable to us.

As Jackson and Green have ably demonstrated, the term "with her" does not demand immediate proximity, and is somewhat similar to Paul's "God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him" (1 Thess. 4:14).

Tom, by stating your goal prior to expounding on Genesis 3:6, you at a minimum set a tone for possible eisogesis. Like you, I agree that we should not use the Fall to be unduly hard on women, and neither should we twist the account to "correct" what we see as transgressions to our modern sensibilities. Paul is clear that there was a difference in A&E's sin, and EGW is clear as well.

Ellen goes on to say that Eve's wandering provides a pattern for many restless modern Eves.

Let us all surrender our weakness to Him -- the only source of strength.

G