Where was Adam?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**cringe**

putting EGW on par with Scripture is giving credence to opponents' criticism of Adventism - that it places EGW on an equal basis with the Scriptures.

I guess the GC ought to consider a new addition to the Adventist beliefs: "sola scriptura et ellenus whiticus"

[Green Cochoa]

Rudy,

Unfortunately, we already have "sola scriptura et 28 praecipua opinionum." I'd take Ellen White over the 28 any day.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

nobody has said the 28 fundamental beliefs are the equivalent to actual scripture...you, on the other hand, are stating that the the writings of Ellen White ARE scripture...

that's a good way to prove to non-Adventists that SDA's are misguided, at best, and heretics, at worst...

(and my name is not Rudy)

[CoAspen]

(...reminds me of country song by Waylon Jennings wife, have it on vinyl...somewhere!)

[Guest arnie]

Let's see. . ."When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, WHO WAS WITH HER, AND HE ATE IT" Genesis 3:6.NIV Why is this a mystery when it is stated in black and white."HE WAS WITH HER"? Why did Ellen try to make it into something else? I don't get it. There's no point unless it makes the story more exciting. What's wrong with the Bible's version? If Moses thought it was important, he would have put the story in the same context as Ellen's and why is the correct version so important to us? Because it's imperative to tell the truth, even though it may be on an elementary level.

[Green Cochoa]

Allow me to quote the most relevant three paragraphs of the article which Windsor already linked above (#683598).

Quote:

So then, how does “careful research and prayerful reflection” resolve the apparent contradiction of the Adam and Eve accounts of Ellen White and the Bible? Interestingly, it all centers on that English preposition “with.” The Hebrew language has two completely different terms for “with:” ’eth and ‘im, each with its own distinct primary meaning. The standard Hebrew dictionary points out that ’eth is a preposition “denoting proximity;” then, it adds “together with.” For example, speaking about the wicked, God says to Noah: “I will destroy them with the earth“ (Genesis 6:13b). The word “with” in this text is a translation of the Hebrew ’eth, which means “together with,” because it denotes “proximity.”

However, consider for a moment Genesis 3:12, where Adam is vainly seeking to excuse his sin: “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Immediately, one will recognize that vital preposition “with.” However, instead of the Hebrew term ’eth, the completely different word ‘im, is used. Why? Because, this latter term is one which refers to “fellowship and companionship.” Hence, the New English Bible, accurately capturing the specific meaning of this different Hebrew term for “with,” renders Genesis 3:12 as follows: “The man said, ‘The woman you gave me for a companion, she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate it.’” Obviously, God did not give Eve to Adam to be physically “together with” him wherever he went. But, He did give Eve to Adam “for a companion,” which is an accurate translation conveying what the Hebrew term ‘im means.

So, guess which Hebrew term for “with” is used in our “problem text” of Genesis 3:6? Right, it’s the word ‘im, the term that means “companionship.” In brief, using “careful research” we can correctly conclude as follows: By inspiration, Moses stated that, after she had taken and eaten of the forbidden tree, Eve gave some fruit “unto her husband, [literally] companion of her.” Actually, nothing in the text (or especially the context) suggests that Adam was “together with” Eve. On the contrary, the use of the specific term denoting “companionship” reveals that there is no contradiction between the Bible and Ellen White!

By the way, I would consider the NIV's construction on it in this case as being inappropriate. "Who was with her" is more confusing than the KJV's rendition in this case.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Guest arnie]

Heres the thing, if the NIV doesn't agree with my theory, then it must be inappropriate, right?"Who was with her" is more confusing to whom?

[Green Cochoa]

If the NIV doesn't agree with the KJV, which one is right? This is, unfortunately, the fact of the matter in many places throughout scripture. Therefore, one or the other is correct, right? Two disagreeing points cannot both be correct, right?

For example:

Quote:

Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:22, KJV)

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy‑seven times. (Matthew 18:22, NIV)

490 ≠ 77 !

I've studied the matter carefully, and I know which version is more trustworthy. This factors into my acceptance of the KJV over the NIV in this Genesis account as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[CoAspen]

I would suggest that when we get into 'splitting of hairs', we have lost site of the 'message'! The message of 2 texts posted was not about numbers but about what forgivness truly meant.

[Green Cochoa]

I would suggest that when we get into 'splitting of hairs', we have lost site of the 'message'! The message of 2 texts posted was not about numbers but about what forgivness truly meant.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I would also point out that if you choose to accept the core message of forgiveness from this text that I believe Jesus also intended, the KJV shows a much greater level of forgiveness than does the NIV--more than six times as much.

Really?? You need exact numbers to get the message? Both texts simply say forgive as often as needed.

As I said.....splitting....losing the message.....

[M. T. Cross]

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.

Thought to ponder on, could not the same be held true for the prophetic gifts of those authors contained in the Bible? Had they lived in an age of publishing as EGW did and we do now, could it not have been possible they may have revisited their understanding of things and re tooled what they had to say?

[CoAspen]

Hmmm, interesting question. We do, quite often, forget that the Bible is composed by human writers putting down their impressions/thoughts/ideas recieved from

God. If, as christianity believes, knowledge is a dynamic process, then one could wonder what 'updates' might have taken place before final 'publication'.

[Liz]

Thought to ponder on, could not the same be held true for the prophetic gifts of those authors contained in the Bible? Had they lived in an age of publishing as EGW did and we do now, could it not have been possible they may have revisited their understanding of things and re tooled what they had to say?

But see that was also part of my question because they did. At least Nathan did in 2 Samuel 7:1-17, he told King David to go ahead and build a temple, but then GOD told Nathan "no", and Nathan had to go back to King David.

I think that this passage was put in there to show that sometimes prophets spoke their own words. If GOD wanted to show them as infallible then why not just skip to the end of the story? King David wanted to build a temple, but Nathan said no.

[M. T. Cross]

So it leads me to wonder how many more authors of the Bible may have added to or taken away from what they originally had to say,given the opportunity.

I guess this is one of my core issues with the Bible being considered THE TRUTH. It is a great book, a great guideline, but at the end of the day it was written by humans that were putting down their own thoughts, perceptions, and understandings based on the world they lived in. I don't think that takes away from the validity of any of it. I would simply suggest that many of those who are said to have written the books of the Bible continued to grow and learn. What is written in the Bible represents the world view they had at one point of their life.

[CoAspen]

Doubt is much different than questioning and learning. The first is a negative, the second is a positive. We all experience both. Sometimes doubt can lead to the positive.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

I would also point out that if you choose to accept the core message of forgiveness from this text that I believe Jesus also intended, the KJV shows a much greater level of forgiveness than does the NIV--more than six times as much.

In the context of a prior entry, Green had referenced the KJV and the NIV. He had pointed out that the NIV says to forgive "seventy-seven times."

Well, Green again tells a partial truth. Yes, the NIV does say as he has cited. but, it says more which Green failed to cite. The NIV says in addition:

Quote:

. . . or seventy times seven

The above is like the KJV.

Read in the whole, the NIV is not as different from the KJV as Green has made it out to be.

Green has told a partial truth. The whole truth in this case is not exactly as Green has presented it.

NOTE: It is always good to check to source to see for oneself what that source actually says.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory has told a partial truth. He is not correct that the NIV says "or seventy times seven" in the text. That is relegated to a footnote...for those who bother to look down there and read it.

The whole truth in this case is not exactly as Gregory has presented it.

NOTE: It is always good to check the source to see for oneself what that source actually says.

Meanwhile, what I said is precisely the truth when comparing actually verse with verse. If you want to include marginal notes, footnotes, or Bible commentaries--all of which appear more "human" and rather less inspired, well....then enjoy your NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Guest arnie]

Comparing 70 times 7 with seven sevens, or whatever, is a little different than spending a couple of pages writing a philosophical reason on why Eve was alone at the forbidden tree. The Bible story portrays Adam and Eve together. They together disobeyed God. They ate of the tree, and they were ashamed to be without clothes together and it appears together they made clothes for themselves. When God approached them, they were together along with the serpent because God addressed all three. If Eve was alone, when did she recognize that she was undressed because of her disobedience? How long did it take her to find Adam and did he not notice?I always wondered about this one.

Since Ellen went to great lengths to fill in the details, there's some things she obviously left out. This is ludicrous stuff and I'm done debating because The Bible version is best left the way it is. Plain, simple and doesn't side track the point as to what else took place. Adding opinions like Ellen used, leads us away from the purpose of Genesis 3:15, where God explaines the second chance He's provided for all of us. Maybe that's why the Bible shouldn't be messed with. We can only praise God for His amazing grace. I would behoove all to lay everything other than the Bible aside, pray for God's blessing and read. May God Bless, and Happy New Year!

[debbym]

this story was held in oral tradition for maybe 2000 years before it was written down. what is written is extremely brief.

it could be that all the things we would try to parse out were all readily understood by those who were living during the time of oral tradition when things began to be written down.

no one then could imagine trying to grasp the whole story from a few brief written words.

we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to teach us and help us grasp what is important about this story to our relationship to God, to ourselves and to others.

And if we want to understand it and ask for help from God he will help us understand it.

Happy New year!

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

Quote:

Gregory has told a partial truth. He is not correct that the NIV says "or seventy times seven" in the text. That is relegated to a footnote...for those who bother to look down there and read it.

The whole truth in this case is not exactly as Gregory has presented it.

Green: That is exactly what I expected you to say.

I find it interesting that by alleging that I told a partial truth you acknowledge that you told a partial truth. Thank you for admitting that.

I thought about stating that it was a footnote and decided not to do so. I thought that if I did not make that statement you would make it for me and in doing so you would acknowledge that the NIV did have it, even if as a footnote.

As an author and translator, I remind you that a published book consists of the central text, footnotes, index and appendix. One cannot take a book and claim that everything published in the book, outside of the central text, is excluded from consideration. All is considered to be part of the published edition of the book.

This is a central practice of all Biblical translators, to include the translators of the KJV. Translation is done from what is called a critical text. That text is filled page by page with footnotes. Take a current edition of the KJV or the NKJV. You will find footnotes and marginal references. Those are all a part of the published book.

A published edition of the NIV consists of the central text and the footnotes.

What does the footnote mean in the NIV? Very simply, the translators of the NIV are clearly showing that in their mind the text could read either way.

Thank you for doing what I expected you to do--acknowledge that the NIV reads as I said.

Green also said:

Quote:

Meanwhile, what I said is precisely the truth when comparing actually verse with verse. If you want to include marginal notes, footnotes, or Bible commentaries--all of which appear more "human" and rather less inspired, well....then enjoy your NIV.

First, let us acknowledge that even the translators were human. Green translates, as I understand it, spiritual writings into another language. I have no reason to believe that Green is anything but human and subject to error on some levels.

Second, let us point out that the KJV & NKJV have footnotes.

Third, a Biblical Commentary is much different from a footnote placed by a translator in a published edition of a Bible. The Recovery Bible is one such that places commentary into the published edition of what is substantially a KJV. But, even in that publication the commentary is clearly separated from the Biblical part.

[Aliensanctuary]

I suspect we'll all be surprised at the way things turn out in the next life, including those of us who are members of present-day, somewhat misguided, religions. We should focus on the most important thing, which is, of course, living our lives as willing, worthy servants of God and mankind.

It is a great tragedy that our first parents infected themselves with the virus of evil, resulting in death and destruction to all of their descendents. Plan B is good, too, giving the opportunity of repopulating the Earth to those who willingly choose to serve the LORD forever as his servants.

[olger]

The fact that the prophet Nathan was quickly corrected by God leads me to have greater confidence in the Bible. Paul did say that all scripture (OT) was inspired,and Jesus often quoted scripture, admonishing us not to err by being ignorant of it. If God designed the OT to be inspired, I am sure he did the same with the NT-- unless of course we choose to doubt Paul and Jesus.

if we can't trust scripture then we have no anchor for our souls, no moral code, no transcendental truths and no God we can trust.

let us not let doubt creep in, for it is ever lurking at the door.

Precisely, Sir.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**copying and pasting my post from another thread, as it is TOTALLY applicable here**

Here's what the White Estate folks write:

Realize That Prophets Are Not Verbally Inspired, Nor Are They Infallible or Inerrant.

"The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible. The writings of God's prophets are infallible as a guide to salvation, but they are not inerrant or without error. Part of the lesson is that we need to read for the central lessons of Scripture and Ellen White rather than the details."

Avoid Making the Counsels "Prove" Things They Were Never Intended to Prove

"That statement of purpose is crucial in understanding her use of history. Her intention was to trace the dynamics of the conflict between good and evil across time. That was her message. The historical facts merely enriched its tapestry. She was not seeking to provide incontrovertible historical data. In actuality, as she put it, the "facts" she used were "well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world"..

source

[Johann]

Gregory has told a partial truth. He is not correct that the NIV says "or seventy times seven" in the text. That is relegated to a footnote...for those who bother to look down there and read it.

The whole truth in this case is not exactly as Gregory has presented it.

NOTE: It is always good to check the source to see for oneself what that source actually says.

Meanwhile, what I said is precisely the truth when comparing actually verse with verse. If you want to include marginal notes, footnotes, or Bible commentaries--all of which appear more "human" and rather less inspired, well....then enjoy your NIV.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If Gregory quoted marginal notes he's in good company. Ellen White did that frequently too.