| Author | Message | ||
| Patallen Registered user Username: Patallen Post Number: 192 Registered: 7-2010  |
Does anyone know why Ellen White said that Eve had strayed from Adam's side when she was tempted? There must be a reason, right?  | ||
| Dljc Registered user Username: Dljc Post Number: 421 Registered: 7-2010 |
I agree, good insight J9! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12444 Registered: 12-2003  |
Actually, I don't think she came up with it. I've heard that other places as well. I think she copied it...but she made quite a theology around it...at least we were deeply indoctrinated with that little flaw. It was clearly an unscriptural thing that she found and, because she didn't know Scripture, she was just fine with using it. Somehow that story all fit nicely into her great controversy theme which completely skews an Adventist's worldview. It really reminds me of the Matrix... Colleen | ||
| Rossbondreturns Registered user Username: Rossbondreturns Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2009  |
Salvation...Matrix Style. My Take on the Red Pill Blue Pill Scene in the Matrix Sorry Colleen when you said the Matrix...I couldn't resist. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1132 Registered: 7-2005  |
One big thing I always have found very frustrating about Adventists is that they can look right at something in the Bible and call it untrue. Or, on the other hand, they can insist that something is in the Bible, when it's not there at all. The ten commandments were not given to anyone but Israel at Sinai. It's right there in black and white. Deut 5:3. "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day." And then come the ten commandments. | ||
| Dljc Registered user Username: Dljc Post Number: 423 Registered: 7-2010 |
You see, when you answer the first question the second answers itself. Here they are again. 1.) We know that sin is a transgression of the law and that law being the 10C's. With this in mind, the first question you have to ask is, Which one of the 10C's did Adam and Eve break? We know they were evicted from the Garden of Eden for their disobedience, but which law did they break? 2.) Cain murdered Abel after the offering and outside the Garden of Eden. Why wasn't Adam told by God to kill Cain? In Genesis 9:6 Noah was given the command to kill anyone who murdered someone. Why wasn't Adam given the same command concerning Cain? Adam and Eve could bare another male child and did. Because Adam wasn't commanded to do it, and the 10C's wouldn't be handed down until the Israelites were delivered from Egypt. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Gal 3:16-19) | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1133 Registered: 7-2005 |
Dljc, your logic is brilliant! If I weren't already convinced, I would be convinced by your excellent points. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1697 Registered: 3-2009 |
DLJC post 414 Making no always mean to build, to construct. For example if I say "I make the Bible my only rule of faith and practice," am I saying that I build,construct, write the Bible to be my guide? No. Even thought the Bible is already made, what I'm saying is that I accept it as my guide. I don't agree that the law was given at Eden. It was given at Sinai, but if we use arguments that could be twisted, then they will confirm their believe even more. In this case they could say that Adam and Eve committed idolatry by making (accepting) the tree something above God. Hec | ||
| Dljc Registered user Username: Dljc Post Number: 425 Registered: 7-2010 |
Hec, I understand what you're saying, but here's where the problem comes in with it being idolatry, imho. When we start applying the law where it wasn't given, we create problems for ourselves. Let me give you an example. I like Elberta Peaches. The truth is I like a good peach. I've had good peaches, but the Elberta peach seems to be consistant in it's flavor and sweetness. Does that mean I idolize Elberta peaches? See what I mean? When you start applying the law where it wasn't intended it creates problems. If Adam and Eve broke the "idolatry" commandment, then we open the door for any and everything we "desire" to become classified as idolatry. If I desire an Elberta peach, I'm guilty of idolatry. If I like a certain type of automobile (despite it's make or model) because it's shown to be reliable, then I'm guilty of idolatry. The second question about Cain is a good example of this. According to the command given to Noah, anyone who murders another human being is to be put to death. But Adam wasn't given that command, it wasn't given until Noah. Instead we see in Scripture that God cursed Cain. So does that mean God is unfair or unjust? No, not at all, it simply means the law (the 10C's) wasn't given at the Garden of Eden nor even to Noah, it wasn't given until the Israelites were delievered from Egypt, and it was given directly to them as the Old Covenant. That is their covenant with God. Think about it like this. If we apply the law where God didn't intend it to be, we set ourselves up for failure. It's like a cop giving you a ticket/citation for driving 55 mph. in the 15 mph school zone, that you haven't gotten to yet. When you go to court, the judge is going to look at the ticket and where you were at the time of the ticket, and throw it out. Because you were driving the speed limit for the section of road you were on. You hadn't reached the school zone the ticket was issued for. So if Adam and Eve were guilty of idolatry, you have to show when the law was given prior to the offense. Otherwise the judge (God) will throw it out. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1700 Registered: 3-2009 |
Good explanation Dljc. Hec | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 454 Registered: 1-2007  |
Romans 4:15 For the law produces wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression. Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person's account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One. Romans 5:20 The law came along to multiply the trespass. But where sin multiplied, grace multiplied even more Genesis 3:4-7 "No! You will not die," the serpent said to the woman. "In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL." then the woman SAW THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD AND DELIGHTFUL TO LOOK AT, AND THAT IT WAS DESIRABLE FOR OBTAINING WISDOM. So she took some of it's fruit and ate; she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were NAKED; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loinclothes for themselves. The law was given to multiply the trespass, the one which Satan told Eve that they would be like God, knowing good and evil, Eve believed that she can obtain wisdom. Was the fruit of the tree sin? Certainly not but it certainly revealed sin as Adam and Eve realized they were both naked then attempted to cover themselves with the very same leaves of the tree, since the Bible says they realized they were naked after eating one realized that they were right there after eating and then grabbed leaves from the very tree they were at. We do the very same thing with the law, it opens our eyes to our condition then we foolishly think that we can cover our sin by trying to keep the law, but we remain naked before God. So how can one ever find True Rest when trying to hide behind the very thing that reveals our nakedness. So what is true Sabbath Rest. Well Hebrews 4 says it perfectly and this is the rest that was meant for us before we knew we were sinners. Notice in Hebrews 4:13 after explaining our Rest in Christ's completed works it states "No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account." Adventists and many other Christians (Us formers at one time as well) are always trying to cover our nakedness with the very law which revealed our sin, this sin that was in the world before the law, the law that was given to increase the trespass, so staying under the law will only increase sin for us. Genesis 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, FOR ON THE DAY YOU EAT FROM IT, YOU WILL CERTAINLY DIE." 1 Corinthians 5:55-56 Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting? Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 1 Corinthians 5:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! Paul | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1712 Registered: 3-2009 |
Paul I love this idea. Do you have any Bible evidence that that is the way it happened or is that one of Ellen's visions? Hec | ||
| Animal Registered user Username: Animal Post Number: 910 Registered: 7-2008  |
Wait a second.... Are we saying that nakedness was considered sin before "the Fall"? Animal..the curious one. | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 455 Registered: 1-2007 |
No but before sin nakedness was not shameful. | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 456 Registered: 1-2007 |
Hec, No just looke at the passages in Genesis, They were at the tree when they ate and their eyes were open, they realized they were naked and covered themselves with fig leaves, to me it only makes sense that the moment they realized and felt shame they immediately grabbed the first thing they could to cover themselves. The bible does not say it that way exactly but it seems like common sense to me, any other thoughts? Paul | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 874 Registered: 7-2004  |
Paul, With absolutely no offense met, I am wary of any teachings that come from our speculation, no matter how logical, rather than directly from Scripture alone. | ||
| Pnoga Registered user Username: Pnoga Post Number: 457 Registered: 1-2007 |
no offense taken, but what does scripture say, they ate, their eyes were opened, they realized they were naked and took fig leaves to cover themselves, if you realized u were naked, would you grab the first available thing to immediately cover yourself? I don't think I am saying anything that doesn't seem obvious or teaches what scripture says. the law was given to multiply the trespass, what is it multiplying? look back at the scripture I provided. Paul | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 9144 Registered: 3-2004  |
Gen 3:7...Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. NIV | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 877 Registered: 7-2004 |
Paul, First available or the nearby type that would do the job the best. For example (and I'm not claiming this tradition is true) IF the tree was an apple tree, sewing together apple leaves might have been more challenging than sewing together fig leaves from a tree 10 feet away. As long as there are other highly valid options there is no reason to insist on one conclusion when Scripture is silent on the matter. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1718 Registered: 3-2009 |
Based on that supposition, then we can authoritatively say that the prohibited tree was a fig tree. No that it matters if it was fig, apple, or what have you. It's just that the Bible doesn't say what it was. Hec |
