Where was Adam?

[Gail]

I read footnotes all the time. That is one feature I enjoy about the NIV. It informs me of those passages that are not as clear as others and could be translated differently.

My regular Bible is not NIV, though, in case you wondered.

[Tom Wetmore]

If the Spirit deemed it important to reveal to Mrs. White more detailed description of what took place in Eden, why are we doubting not only the need for such information, but its veracity as well? I think we may be in need of another 1855 type conference to avoid further grieving the Holy Spirit by treating the gift of prophecy as the mere invention of of Mrs. White.

You are over-reacting and misrepresenting what others have said. Nobody is saying that the gift of prophecy is a mere invention of Mrs. White. Read and re-read the statements that Pam has posted. It is the perspective of the White Estate. I don't think they would misrepresent EGW.

[Tom Wetmore]

So do you think Ellen White was just being modest when she said to take the word of Scripture over her words? Or did she mean exactly what she said, that her words were not to trump the word of Scripture?

The problem some seem to have is that every word she said and and wrote must be true and correct or none of it is. Consequently it is mere lip service to acknowledge the human element of her inspiration and that she was not infallible. They really don't believe it is true. She is held to a divine standard. Those who believe in that way simply cannot recognize any mistake she may have made or it will destroy they confidence in everything she wrote. You see this clearly in many who have abandoned the Adventist faith entirely. They will point to any error as proof that she was not from God. They are holding her to a standard that should only apply to God.

I am not one of them.

I accept her word that she was fallible. It does not trouble me that she made mistakes. I accept her view of inspiration as an impress upon the person and that it was not verbal inspiration. She was not God's transcriptionist. The human element was always a factor. I also understand that much of her commentary in the whole Conflict of the Ages series was the result of a combination of several factors, some scenes she had been shown in vision that she described in her own words, her own reading, study and research of Scripture and other commentators on Scripture, and the assistance of her staff in gathering those resources and doing research for her. There was a process of drafting, editing and redrafting with the assistance of her staff. God did not dictate it to her verbatim. If he had, the process would have been much simpler. One draft, perfect start to finish. No staff needed to do research, proof reading and editing. No rewriting of portions. No compiling and editing of previously written material. She wouldn't have needed to use the extensive library she had. She would have only needed pen and paper.

It really is easier to accept and understand her writings with that in mind. Fewer people abandon the Adventist faith and/or reject EGW with that view.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said:

Quote:

The problem some seem to have is that every word she said and and wrote must be true and correct or none of it is. Consequently it is mere lip service to acknowledge the human element of her inspiration and that she was not infallible. They really don't believe it is true. She is held to a divine standard. Those who believe in that way simply cannot recognize any mistake she may have made or it will destroy they confidence in everything she wrote. You see this clearly in many who have abandoned the Adventist faith entirely. They will point to any error as proof that she was not from God. They are holding her to a standard that should only apply to God.

This was the fundamental problem with Walter Rae.

He threw everything out when he was forced to admit that his understanding was in error and he thought that was her view.

If Walter Rae could have moved on to a more balanced, Biblical, view of her work, Walter Rae could have been a great light in the SDA Church. But, he failed in what he could have done, due to his thinking.