Adventist Online

As a new SDA Christian (since 2008) can people please answer the following.

If people can answer these and convince me that she is truly of God then I will not ask anymore of you.But if you cant I will keep asking until I know what I need to know to make up my mind.

I became a Seventh Day Adventist under conviction of the Sabbath.

However this sort of thing leaves me to wonder.

I ask for honest non-judgmental answers please.I need to know was e.g.white mis-quoted or did she mean it the way it is written.

1. WAS THE PLAN OF SALVATION MADE AFTER THE FALL?

EGW: YES "The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347).

BIBLE: NO "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you
were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the
precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:18-20).

BIBLE: NO "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in
his sight" (Ephesians 1:4).

2. WAS ADAM WITH EVE WHEN SHE WAS TEMPTED IN THE GARDEN?

EGW: NO "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 temptation than if she were
alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving
that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger. ... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53, 54).

BIBLE: YES "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).

3. WAS ADAM DECEIVED BY SATAN?

EGW: YES "Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he
need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law" (Evangelism, p. 598).

BIBLE: NO "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and
became a sinner" (1 Timothy 2:14).

4. WHO SPOKE TO CAIN?

EGW: ANGEL "Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou doest well,
shalt thou not be accepted?'" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 74).

BIBLE: LORD "Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If
you do what is right will you not be accepted?' ... So Cain went out from the Lord's presence"
(Genesis 4:6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16).

5. DID PRE-FLOOD HUMANS MATE WITH ANIMALS AND GIVE BIRTH TO NEW SUB-HUMAN SPECIES AND RACES?

EGW: YES "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by
the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God,
and caused confusion everywhere" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64).

EGW: YES "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The
confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed
by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the
almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p.
75).

BIBLE: NO "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move long the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it
was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was
good" (Genesis 1:24, 25).

6. DID GOD OR AN ANGEL SHUT THE DOOR OF NOAH'S ARK?

EGW: ANGEL "An angel is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from heaven clothed with
brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door, and takes his course upward to
heaven again" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 68, written in 1864).

EGW: GOD "... God had shut it, and God alone could open it" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 98,
written in 1890).

BIBLE: GOD 'Then the Lord shut him in" (Genesis 7:16).

7. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD?

EGW: YES "This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from
the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual Gifts, vol.
3, p. 301).

BIBLE: NO "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that
reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the
face of the whole earth" (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4).

8. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT TO ESCAPE ANOTHER FLOOD?

EGW: YES "The dwellers on the plain of Shinar disbelieved God's covenant that He would not
again bring a flood upon the earth. Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the
Flood to the operation of natural causes. ... One object before them in the erection of the tower was
to secure their own safety in case of another deluge. By carrying the structure to a much greater
height than was reached by the waters of the Flood, they thought to place themselves beyond all
possibility of danger. And as they would be able to ascend to the region of the clouds, they hoped to ascertain the cause of the Flood" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 119).

BIBLE: NO "Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the
heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole
earth'" (Genesis 11:4).

9. WAS MOSES' WIFE ZIPPORAH, A "CUSHITE?"

EGW: YES "(Miriam) complained of Moses because he married an Ethiopian (Cushite) woman"
(Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4, p. 19).

EGW: NO "Though called a 'Cushite woman' (Numbers 12:1, R.V.), the wife of Moses was a
Midianite, and thus a descendant of Abraham" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 383).

BIBLE: YES "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he
had married a Cushite" (Numbers 12:1).

10. WERE THE ISRAELITES DESTROYED BY GLUTTONY?

EGW: YES "God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to eat till their gluttony
produced a plague" (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 148).

BIBLE: NO "But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed,
the anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague" (Numbers 11:33).

Views: 1495

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I will address only the first 2 for now as I do not have the time as I am working and in between calls...

  1. She said it was INSTITUTED after the fall meaning it was in force when sin took place but the plan was developed, should man sin, before the fall so that man would not die immediately.
  2. When the Bible says "who was with her" it is their way of language back then in the same way Jesus said Verily Verily I say unto you... TODAY... you will be with me in paradise.  In our day, we would leave out the word today just as we would leave out the words "who was with her".  It just means that he was with her when HE ate the fruit not when she was beside the tree and ate it herself originally.

Make sense?  These people who take their creed to the Bible to prove hat she is a false prophet do so as they do not accept something she clarifies in scripture.  Feast keepers do the same and walk in error as well. 

God bless Brother Daniel!

Ellen White did not contradict the bible, she actually knew her bible very well and was being directed by he holy spirit 

Most of the issues or question raised  have been dealt with here-in this forum, many times 

1. WAS THE PLAN OF SALVATION MADE AFTER THE FALL?

For our first response, we will here quote from a friend of ours who could not have put it in better words. In this response, our friend is responding to another critic named Robert K. Sanders who brought forth this same allegation. Notice:

Sanders appears to have forgotten to check a few facts before arriving at his conclusions. For example, he should have checked what else the Bible has to say on this topic:

Before the Foundation of the World:


“According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” (Eph. 1:4)

“. . . as of a “lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” (1 Pet. 1:19,20)

Since the Foundation of the World:

“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” (Mat. 25:34)

“. . . whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 17:8)

“. . . the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8)

Surely Sanders would not be so brash as to accuse the apostle John or our Savior of contradicting the Bible and making God a liar. And yet it is very true: While Paul has us being chosen before Creation, Christ and John have our names written and the kingdom prepared for us since Creation. And while Peter has Christ being ordained to die before Creation, John has Christ being slain since Creation. Thus we have the same apparent contradiction in Scripture that we find in Ellen White's writings.

Yet we will quickly add, such apparent contradictions in Scripture are typically only apparent, never real. For example:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)

The Greek grammar in Acts 9:7 indicates that the men with Paul heard some sort of noise, while the Greek grammar of Acts 22:9indicates that they did not hear with understanding what the voice was saying. Thus these verses don't contradict each other at all: The men definitely heard something, but didn't hear with understanding.

Ellen White apparently acknowledged the very point Sanders is contending for, namely, that the plan of salvation was devised before Creation. We found a few other similar quotations that are even more plain:

“All our thoughts and imaginations will not alter in the least any part of the plan of redemption devised from all eternity.—The Signs of the Times, Feb. 5, 1894.

“. . . it was in the death of “Christ, in the cruel suffering and crucifixion, that the Son of God accomplished the very work for which he was ordained from before the foundation of the world.—Signs of the Times, Mar. 26, 1894.

“When Christ spoke these words ["It is finished"], He addressed His Father. . . . It was the fulfillment of the covenant made between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the earth was laid.” -S.D.A. Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1149 (1897).

The great plan, devised before the foundations of the earth were laid, was successfully carried out.” -Manuscript Releases, vol. 3, p. 426 (1898).

“We do not sympathize with God as we should in the salvation of the human race. We do not regard it in the light in which it is viewed by the universe of Heaven, as a plan devised from eternity in the mind of God.” -Bible Training School, Sept. 1, 1908.

“But how few of us regard the salvation of sinners in the light in which it is viewed by the heavenly universe,—as a plan devised from eternity in the mind of God!” -Gospel Workers, 1915 ed., p. 116.

Yet at the same time we also found the following, similar in wording to the 1894 Signs of the Times quote above, but different in meaning:

“And, altho the plan of salvation was carried forward according to the plan ordained from the foundation of the earth, yet men and women will not be saved unless they themselves exercise faith, and build on the true foundation, unless they allow God to re-create them by His Holy Spirit.” -Signs of the Times, Feb. 14, 1900.

For some reason, Ellen White believed that the plan of salvation was devised and ordained both "before" and "from" "the foundation of the world." Some might be inclined to suggest that she grew in her understanding of this topic over the years, and thus her earlier statements tend to put the devising/ordaining after the fall while her later statements tend to place it prior to Creation. But this hypothesis appears inadequate, for after years of "before the foundation of the world" statements, we still have her placing the devising/ordaining after Creation as late as the above 1900 Signs article. And the Great Controversy statement this whole discussion started with comes from the 1911 edition of that book. Thus, we need to look for another answer.

Perhaps "devise" might have some sort of meaning that would allow it to be harmoniously used in both the contexts found in Ellen White's writings. Perhaps sometimes "devise" could refer to the original conception of the plan of redemption, while at other times it could refer to the making known, putting into effect, or elaboration of the plan already previously thought of.
We checked out a few dictionaries, and here is what we found:

de•vise (di viz'), v., -vised, -vis•ing, n. —v.t. 1. to contrive, plan, or elaborate; invent from existing principles or ideas: to devise a method.—Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., © 2001.

e•lab•o•rate . . . —v.t. 3. to work out carefully or minutely; develop to perfection. 4. to add details to; expand. 5. to produce or develop by labor.—Ibid.

de•vise . . . 1 a : to form in the mind by new combinations or applications of ideas or prinicples : INVENT . . . c : to plan to obtain or bring about : PLOT—Merriam-Webster's Collegiate

Dictionary, 10th ed., © 2001. Devise . . . The sense-development was far advanced before the word was taken into English; O[ld]F[rench]. had the senses, '. . . form a plan or design,

express or make known one's plan or will' . . . .
† 6. a. refl. To plan, determine, resolve. Obs. . . .
† b. intr. To resolve or decide upon. Obs. . . .
† 8. trans. (or absol.) To 'contrive' successfully; to achieve, accomplish, 'manage'. Obs. . . .
† 9. To prepare with skill, make ready, provide, purvey. (Also absol.) Obs. . . .
† 13. To set forth in detail, recount, describe. . . .
† b. intr. or absol. To give an account. Obs. . . .—The Oxford English Dictionary, 1969 printing.

In all honesty, it would appear to us that our hunch is correct. "Devise" has had a breadth of meaning that allowed it in days gone by to refer to both the initial thought of a plan, and its much later elaboration, expansion, appointment, making known, or decision to put into effect.

According to Ellen White, something special took place in heaven after Adam sinned. The plan of redemption was "accepted" by the Father and "made known" to the angels:

“Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost. . . . I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen. . . . He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon. . . . Jesus also told them that they would have a part to act, to be with Him and at different times strengthen Him; that He would take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs; that they would be witnesses of His humiliation and great sufferings; and that as they would witness His sufferings, and the hatred of men toward Him, they would be stirred with the deepest emotion, and through their love for Him would wish to rescue and deliver Him from His murderers; but that they must not interfere to prevent anything they should behold; and that they should act a part in His resurrection; that the plan of salvation was devised, and His Father had accepted the plan.” -Early Writings, p. 149-151.

We know from John 3:16 that "God so loved the world that He gave His begotten Son." Even though the plan of salvation existed in the mind of God from eternity, the manner in which Ellen White describes it being made known reveals the fathomless depths of God's self-sacrificing love for fallen man. The Father and Son could have nonchalantly told the angels, "Don't worry about it. We had this figured out long ago. It's no big deal," but the description of the three-time struggle of the Father in consenting to give His Son is far more grand.

Similarly, we have Christ beseeching the Father three times in Gethsemane to let Him not go to Calvary. The struggle was so intense that Christ sweat great drops of blood. The more intense the three-time struggle Christ had in agreeing to go to Calvary, the greater the revelation of His self-sacrificing love.

Of course, if Gethsemane had never occurred, we wouldn't have this grand display of Christ's love. Even though Christ had "accepted" the plan of salvation before the foundation of the world, He still took the time to "accept" it again in Gethsemane. Likewise, in Ellen White's view, the Father "accepted" the plan of salvation after man's fall, even though it already existed in His mind from eternity.

Probably in some similar sense Ellen White's words regarding the devising/ordaining of the plan of salvation should be understood

2. Was Adam with Eve when
she was deceived?




A number of critics continue to point to the fact that Ellen White said Adam was not “with” Eve when she was tempted while the bible says he “was” with her. The quote they refer to is the following:


"The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herselffrom her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger... She soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree." (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53 & 54)

Now here is the verse used to prove Ellen White wrong:

Genesis 3:6 [ESV]
(6) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

We admit that this seems like a direct contradiction. Let's take a second look at this verse, this time from the NIV:

Genesis 3:6 [NIV]
(6) When the women 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.

Again we find these verses saying he was with her.

We want you to notice something here. The verses used here are being quoted from versions of the bible that are translated “thought for thought” rather then “word for word.” Let’s look at a version that is more literal; that translates it word for word:

Genesis 3:6 [KJV]
(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.

Notice that the words “who was” is not there. To remove all doubt, let’s go to the Hebrew. The following is a literal translation of this verse by the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer:

And-she-is-seeing [uthra] the-women [eashe] that [ki] good [tub] the-tree [eotz] for-food [lmkal] and-that [uki] yearning [thaue] he [eua] to-eyes [loinim] and-to-be-coveted [unchmd] the-tree [eotz] to-make-intelligent [leshkil] and-she-is-taking [uthqch] from-fruit-of-him [mphriu] and-she-is-eating [uthakl] and-she-is-giving [uththn] moreover [gm] to-man-of-her [laishe] with-her [ome] and-he-is-eating [uiakl]

Some other versions like the RV and the LITV also agree that the words “who was” do not belong there because they were not there when they were writing originally in Hebrew. Does this change a lot the meaning of the entire verse? Of course it does. If the words “who was” were originally there, this means he was literally by her side at that moment. But because they are absent, it simply means he was with her “in that place,” as in, in the Garden. An example would be if a husband and a wife go to the mall, but they depart, he goes to the sneaker store, and she to the clothing store… her husband is still “with her” because he is at that same place… the mall. Yet, he is not with her at the very location she is which would be the clothing store.

If he was literally with her at that very moment the serpent spoke those deceptive words to her, there are a couple of questions that should be considered:

-Why didn’t he intervene and stop the snake?

Adam was to be the head of his home. As the head and protector, and the ruler of all creatures, Eve was to be his “help meet” –Genesis 2:18. Would not have Adam put a stop to the snake? Would he have been as easily deceived as Eve was? Wouldn’t he have protected his bride?

-Was Adam that ignorant?

The bible says that God told Adam, not Eve, not to eat of the tree (Genesis 2:15-17). Then after this command is where God decides to make the women (verse 18). This suggests that it was Adam who passed along to his wife the teachings God taught him. Was Adam, while at the tree with Eve, so ignorant as to not know, or even forget, that God himself told him not to disobey?

-Why did Adam blame Eve and not the serpent?

Genesis 3:12 says, “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” If Adam was with her at the tree, wouldn't that mean that he was deceived as she was and therefore would have logically accused the serpent as Eve did? Furthermore, verse 17 says that Adam “harkened unto the voice of thy wife.” Notice it does not say he harkened unto the voice of the serpent. It would have said this… if he was with her at the tree at that moment, for there it was the serpent’s voice doing the deceiving.

-Why did the women say she was the one deceived?

In verse 13, we read, “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” If Adam was with her at the tree, wouldn’t she have rather said, “The serpent beguiled us, and wedid eat”?

In light of all this, along with the fact that the Hebrew does not contain the words “who was,” we conclude that Adam was indeed with his wife in the Garden, but not at the tree.

Update!

We found a similar response by our friends at ellen-white.com. To this response, our critics Robert K. Sanders and Sydney Cleveland submitted a rebuttal. We are concerned with a couple of things they said, and would like to respond here.

They said:

"The Bible writer was telling us that it was Eve that accepted the serpent's challenge and ate the fruit. Eve told the serpent that "WE" may eat, and not "I can eat", which shows that Adam was with her at the tree. "The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,"(Gen 3:2 NIV) "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it" (Gen 3:6 NIV). "

The word "we" can be used in both ways. He could have been there, and therefore that is why she said "we." Or, she could have simply been speaking on behalf of both of them. For example, if in a privet conversation with a friend I tell him in regards to my wife and I that, "we enjoy going out for dinner Saturday nights," does that mean that she was there with me when I told my friend what I do Saturday nights? Or was I just speaking about both of us? Taking into consideration the above questions, its likely that the reason why she said "we" was simply because they were both warned not to eat of the fruit of the tree, and she, knowing this, included him in her conversation with the serpant by using the word "we."

There is another point to take into consideration. Returning back to the original Hebrew, literally translated, the word "we" is not really there. This Hebrew word is "no where" to be found in Genesis 3:2 or in Genesis 3:6. That part of the verse literally begins with the word "eat." One can simply look at there Strong's concordance and notice that the English words "we may eat" is translated from just one Hebrew word which is "akal" meaning to "eat." This Strong's number is 398. Now some might feel that, read like this, the verse makes no sense. However we remind our readers that to the Hebrew student this makes perfect sense.


They said:

"The question seems to be what does "with her" mean? The Hebrew makes it clear that "with does not mean apart. "With" in Hebrew; 'im, eem; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines 'im as: "with, beside, by, among, accompanying. …It expresses the concept of inclusiveness, togetherness, company. … The basic conception conveyed is that of fellowship, companionship, common experiences." —pp. 676, 677. The Hebrew-English Lexicon defines 'im as in the "society of, or in the "company" of someone. —p.196. "

While we agree with the definition of this Hebrew word, we do not deny that Adam was indeed "with" her, we simply see, considering the context, that he was "with" her in the Garden, and not at the tree at the moment the serpent beguiled her. The definition of this Hebrew word still allows for these two options, that he was with her "at that moment at the tree" or with her simply "in the garden." How do we arrive at the second option? By considering questions like the ones mentioned above. Like that rather then using words like "me" and "I" she would have said, "the serpent beguiled us, andwe did eat." And Adam, in his perfect state, would have certiantly recognized that the serpent was doing the deceiving and in turn would have blamed him rather then blaming her (verse 12).

Rather then basing this belief on one simple Hebrew word, one should consider the entire context... and the above questions.

They said:

"The apologist contends Adam was not present at the tree because "Eve doesn't say "the serpent beguiled us, and we did eat" but rather, " the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (verse 13). This is simply an admission by Eve that she was the one that was beguiled/deceived by the serpent. She was accepting full responsibility for the sin and did not blame Adam who was "with her". The fact is that the Bible says, "she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." This is also in full agreement with 1 Timothy 2:14 which tells us “Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived.” But then, EGW contradicts this Scripture as well (see #3 below). "

It is certiantly possible that she did in fact accept her sin and did not blame Adam, but the point that she says, "The serpent beguilded ME" still proves that, if he really was with her, she would have used the word "us." Our critics base this point on 1 Timothy 2:14, but, have they really considered what Paul was really trying to say?

3. WAS ADAM DECEIVED BY SATAN?


The following is number 1 in Dirk Anderson’s list of contradictions between Ellen G. Whites writings and the bible:

Ellen White:

"Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law." -Evangelism, p. 598.

The Bible:

"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." -1 Timothy 2:14

His comments:

"NOTE: In Genesis 3:12-13 the Bible says Eve was "deceived" by the serpent, but never says anything about Adam being deceived"



Our Response


Here is Mrs. White's quote again, only this time notice the part we underlined:

“Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law.” Evangelism, p. 598.

Take note of the word “similar.” The dictionary tells us that the word “similar” does not mean “the same,” but rather “alike:”

Dictionary.com
1) Having a likeness or resemblance, esp. in a general way: two similar houses. -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/similar

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
2) Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical. -http://www.bartleby.com/61/47/S0414700.html

Wiktionary
3) Having traits or characteristics in common; alike, comparable. - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/similar


What does this mean? This means Mrs. White was not saying Adam was deceived “the same way” as Eve was, yet, he was “some how” deceived.



What Paul did not say


The question is, was Adam “some how” deceived? The verse our critic presents really doesn’t help his case. For starters, the verse does not contain the words “the one.” It literally reads:

…“And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived was in the transgression.”

Now compare this verse to the actual event which transpired in Genesis 3. Obviously, Adam was “some how” deceived, because he “did” eat that fruit. Is the bible contradicting itself here?

Some present the possibility that Adam just suddenly decided “on his own” to eat of the fruit. But is this logical? Consider how Eve, who was perfect in wisdom and understanding as was Adam, could not decide "on her own" to eat of that fruit knowing that God had already warned her not to. She had to have been "deceived" in order for her to actually disobey. It is reasonable then to say that Adam was not "some how" deceived, being also a perfect human being?

When we read scripture, we are to not only consider what a verse does say, but also what it does not say. In 1 Timothy 2:14, Paul does not say by who Adam was not deceived.

In other words, it does not say that he was not deceived by Eve, nor does it say that he was not deceived by Satan, leaving room for the rest of scripture to answer this question. Below it will be shown that he had to have somehow been deceieved since he did sin.



Eve deceived by Satan, but Adam deceived by Satan "through" Eve

Adam was not deceived… but by whom? In a way, he was not deceived by his wife, but in another way he was deceived by his wife. As will be shown below, Satan "used" his wife to deceive him. Notice the following verse:

Genesis 3:17
(17) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

He was deceived by his wife, because it was her voice which he "hearkened unto." Adam did not hearken unto the voice of the serpent like Eve did, and in this sense Adam was not deceived.

Its unlikely however that Eve deceived Adam intentionally. Satan used her to deceive her husband, and thus Adam was deceived "indirectly" though his wife Eve! This is why Mrs. White said that he was deceived in a “similar” way. Notice the following quote:

"Adam was not deceived by the serpent, as was Eve, and it was inexcusable in Adam to rashly transgress God's positive command. Adam was presumptuous because his wife had sinned. He could not see what would become of Eve. He was sad, troubled, and tempted. He listened to Eve's recital of the words of the serpent, and his constancy and integrity began to waver. Doubts arose in his mind in regard to whether God did mean just as He said. He rashly ate the tempting fruit. -Confrontation, p. 86.1.

Notice she uses a phrase simular to the word "simular" which she used in her book Evangelism. She said that Adam was not deceived by Satan "as was Eve." Notice the next two quotes which can further drive this point:

"Satan exulted in his success. He had now tempted the woman to distrust God, to question His wisdom, and to seek to penetrate His all-wise plans. And through her he had also caused the overthrow of Adam, who, in consequence of his love for Eve, disobeyed the command of God, and fell with her." -1SP 42

"Satan resolved to bend all his energies to defeat the plan of redemption. When the Redeemer came to this world, His path from the manger to the cross was marked with pain and sorrow. At every step He encountered the enemy, who sought in every way to turn Him from His purpose of love. And Satan works against Christians today as he worked against their Leader. He who in Eden used Eve to tempt Adam, uses men in this age to tempt their fellow men." -RH, July 16, 1901 par. 2

We read earlier in Genesis 3:17 that God tells Adam that he "hearkened unto the voice of thy wife." This is where he was deceived, and this is what Ellen White meant.

Evidence of his being "somehow" deceived


By the very fact that Adam sinned, he was already deceived, because by sinning you think you have something to gain when in fact you have your very life to lose as a result. Hence we are all deceived, because we all sin. Sin and Deception are so very closely linked in scripture that one can clearly see how synonymous they really are. Take for example the following verse:

Leviticus 6:2
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceivedhis neighbour;

The person who "deceives" his neighbor has "sinned." In this verse we find the word "deceived" linked with lieing, which is a violation of the 9th commandment. And since "all have sinned " - Romans 3:23, we have all been deceived. Adam also "sinned" therefore Adam was also deceived.

When we sin, we believe that our ways are better then God's way... we are deceiving ourselves. Adam understand God's law. He knew what God meant when he told him not to eat of that fruit of that tree. Because he sinned by violating God's law, besides being deceived through his wife as shown above, he deceived himself. He separated himself for just one moment from God and his laws as we have all done, and that very moment that he found himself looking into the eyes of his wife, and seeing that bitten fruit in her hands, noticing that she is not yet dead... he violated God's law. This was the point in which Adam was deceived... Satan did "not" deceive Adam first, nor did he deceive Adam the same way, but seeing how Eve was not yet dead, its logical to see how he can now be deceived, thinking God's warning didn't come true. Dont forget this crucial point!

Paul also connects sin with deception. Notice what he says:

Romans 7:11
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

When we look into the Law of God as Paul did in Romans 7 verse 9, we notice our sinful conditions and we "realize" that we are actually deceived. Why? Because we are sinners! Paul said that he was alive without the law once, but when the law came; when he looked into the law of God, he saw himself as a sinner (sin revived). He realized that while without the law, he was deceived, not knowing he was in sin. The example he uses is the 10th commandment. He says that he did not know lust... "except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Without the law, he was deceived, not knowing that lust is sin. In fact, lust is the beginning of deception. Notice this next verse:

James 1:14-15
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The command not to eat that fruit was as clear as day. The only way to get Adam to sin, was to somehow deceive him. Adam was "drawn away" in his own lust, and "enticed," while hearkening unto the voice of his wife, resulting in the bringing forth of his "sin," which then resulted in his death.

Yes, Adam was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14) by Satan the same way Eve was deceived, but he was somehow deceived, for all who sin have been "drawn away" and "enticed." We have seen that he was deceived by his wife through the suggestions of the enemy.

-For further study on this issue see Was Adam with Eve when she was deceived?

4. WHO SPOKE TO CAIN

The following is number 6 in Dirk Anderson’s list of contradictions between Ellen G. Whites writings and the bible:

Ellen White:

"Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?'" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 74).

The Bible:

"Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right will you not be accepted?' ... So Cain went out from the Lord's presence" (Genesis 4:67101315,16).

His comments:

None.



Our Response



Actually, this quote is found on page 72 of Patriarchs and Prophets, not 74 (see White Estate). Now, anyone who has read her writings knows that Ellen White frequently used the words “Lord” and “Angel” interchangeably. And most bible students recognize that the bible does the same thing. Some times, when it is "an Angel" speaking, the text tells us that it was really "the Lord." Notice the following two verses:

Genesis 16:7
And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

Genesis 16:13
And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?

First we read from verses 7-12 that it is an “angel of the Lord” speaking, yet when we reach verse 13, Hagar acknowledges that this is in fact “the Lord” speaking to her. She goes so far as to say it was “God” himself (verse 13). Take a look at verse 10:

Genesis 16:10
And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

Can an angel really multiply her seed? Or was it rather the “Lord?”

In the bible we often find the Lord being referred to as an angel:

Genesis 22:15-16
And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son

Exodus 3:2-4
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed… And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Ellen White did often, as does the bible, refer to the Lord as an angel. This should really have not come as a surprise to our critics... if they read their bibles, of course.

An angel in the bible means a messenger, because angels bear messages. We find that most instances in the scriptures where the Lord is referred to as an angel is when he is giving a message to a certain person or group. In a general sense, the bible teaches that God has a message for humanity, and he came in the flesh as a "messenger" to proclaim it.

But, all this could have been avoided... had our critic read her in context:

"Notwithstanding Cain's disregard of the divine command, Goddid not leave him to himself; but He condescended to reason with the man who had shown himself so unreasonable. And the Lordsaid unto Cain, 'Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?' Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.' " -Patriarchs and Prophets, page 72.


For further study, see:

-Who is Michael the Archangel?

5. DID PRE-FLOOD HUMANS MATE WITH ANIMALS AND GIVE BIRTH TO NEW SUB-HUMAN SPECIES AND RACES?

Did Ellen G. White teach 
amalgamation of man with beast?

 


man-beasts? amalgamation?

 

________________________________________




No! And were going to prove it. Here are the two quotes that our critics throw at us:

“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime ofamalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of GOD, and caused confusion everywhere. GOD purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.”—Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.

“Every species of animal which GOD had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which GOD did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.”—Page 75.

But there are a couple of points we want to address here:

Point #1: What is said and what is not said.

It is as equally as important to note what a quote does NOT say as it is to note what it does say. Please note that the quotes, as well as the entire chapter, does not say:

1) Amalgamation of man with beast.'
2) That the amalgamation produced a type of man-beast species.

Point #2: Context of the quote in question.

The passage “amalgamation of man and beast” by itself can certainly be construed to mean “amalgamation of man with beast” but it can also be construed to mean “amalgamation of man and ofbeast.” To understanding which is the appropriate interpretation we must read the whole chapter in its context. If read, one will notice that if what Mrs. White meant was the amalgamation of animals with humans, she would have certainly spoken about that in a more in-depth way. She would have used words such as “man-beast, monsters, creatures, etc.” We can only find this two passages in this chapter, and the context will reveal why there here.

From the very beginning, she begins to speak about the intermingling of “certain groups” of people. She speaks of only two races, the descendents of Seth and the descendents of Cain. Notice her opening statements:

"Those who honored and feared to offend God, at first felt the curse but lightly; while those who turned from God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form."

Notice first that she begins speaking about two classes of people, those who felt the curse “lightly” and those who felt it “more heavily.” Who are these two groups of people? The descendents of Seth and of Cain. Both are addressed by their different titles: Seth’s descendents are called the “sons of God” while Cain’s are the “sons of man.” What crime did these two groups commit?

“As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.”

They intermarried. Why was this a crime? Because the descendents of Cain were idolaters! God had never approved of intermingling with people of another religion and beliefs, especially of people who lived and enjoyed a life of sin. The Lord even gave laws some time after the flood to prevent this from happening again:

Deuteronomy 7:1-4
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee….Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

Leviticus 19:19
(19) Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. (See also Deut. 22:9-11.)

If the account in Genesis 6 were read, one could easily see the results of this intermingling. As soon as the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were “fair” they “took them wives of all which they chose.” –verse 2. As soon as this took place, in verse 3 God says his spirit will not always strive with man, and verse 4 says that there were “giants in those days.” The offspring produced by this intermingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men were men “of old” and “renown” – verse 5. Apparently the Lord was not pleased with the men of the earth in those days, and said that their thoughts were constantly wickedness. Note this carefully... the number of righteous men (sons of God) appeared less and less as they intermingled, while the sons of men with their wickedness increased. So much so, that only “Noah” and his family were the only “perfect and just” people found in his generation –verse 9. Consequently, only these were saved in the Ark. This steady increase of wickedness from verses 1 through 6, and the steady decrease of the sons of God through these verses, is the very reason why intermingling with other races or peoples of different beliefs is, as Ms White calls it, a “crime.” The problem here is not with the mixing of people, but with the mixing of people with different beliefs. As Ms White puts it…

“... they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.” –3SG, page 60

They were influenced by the daughters of men into idolatry, and the very title “daughters of men” rather then “of God” shows they were not a people who worshiped the true God. God knew that intermingling with heathens would cause his people to turn astray…

Deuteronomy 7:1-4
“…For they will turn away thy son from following me that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

It is through this context that we should therefore understand her concluding statement “amalgamation of man and beast. Ellen G. White was in agreement with Paul when he said:

2 Corinthians 6:14
(14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

If what she meant was a mixing of man "with" beast, the context of the chapter would have dealt more with just that.

Point # 3: We now want to address a crucial question:

How can animals deface the image of God by amalgamation, as they are not created in his image?

The following web site (www.ellenwhitedefend.com) examines this particular point in a very informative way. Notice closely the underlines we have added to emphasis (the two graphics are ours):

“One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation of the passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing of different species of animals is the construction of the statement: 'amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God.' And how could the crossing of species of animals do this? But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the 'amalgamation of [A] man and [B] beast:' It...


(A) 'defaced the image of God,' and
(B) 'caused confusion everywhere.'

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


We have seen how the marriage, the amalgamation, of the races of men produced the first of the results. Why could we not properly consider that the amalgamation of the races, or species, of animals produced the second, that is, 'caused confusion everywhere?' When two related things are described in one sentence, it does not follow that we must understand that all the results listed flow from each of the two. This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two controversial passages:

'Every species of animal which GOD had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which GOD did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.'—Ibid., p. 75.

This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood. Here she speaks of 'every species of animal which GOD had created,' in contrast with 'the confused species which God did not create.' 'Confused species' of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species of animal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a species of animal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might be. Mrs. White is here most certainly speaking of 'confused species' of animals. And she says simply that such 'confused species' 'were the result of amalgamation.'

Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Note: The graphic is ours.


We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, already reached, that when Mrs. White said, 'amalgamation of man and beast,' she meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation of species of animals. The first “defaced the image of God, ” the second “caused confusion everywhere.” -visitellenwhitedefend.com 

In addition to their response, we want you to note that the second quote in question actually confirms that when Mrs. White said amalgamation of animals the results of this, she concluded, was “confusion everywhere:”

“Every species of animal which GOD had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which GOD did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, we destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.”—Ibid., p. 75.

Again, WE EMPHASIS that the quote which speaks of TWO types of living beings (humans and animals) results in TWO types of problems. It was the amalgamation of MAN that defaced the image of God, not that of the animals. The result of the amalgamation of the animals was the only result left in the quote… “confused species.”

Point # 4: Some critics provide sources to prove Ellen White supported Uriah Smith’s explanation of her quote.

We again quote from our friends at ellenwhitedefend.com on this matter:

“At no time did Mrs. White offer any comment on the matter. James White spoke approvingly of Smith's book defending Mrs. White against fifty-two objections. But it would be a bold assumption to conclude from this that he agreed with every detail of every explanation and defense that Smith presented. (See James White's approving paragraph in the Review and Herald, Aug. 25, 1868, p. 160.) In the chapter “The Image Beast and 666” we noted that James White approved, with apparently no qualification, a certain prophetic chart. But later, and in another connection, he gently ridiculed a point of prophetic interpretation that is reflected in one statement in the chart. Now, if we are not warranted in drawing from James White's approval of Smith's book the conclusion that he specifically endorsed Smith's statement on amalgamation, we are even less warranted in concluding from James White's approval that Mrs. White approved. Mrs. White's silence proves nothing. Only rarely did she make a statement regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of explanations made by others concerning her writings.”

Reading ellen whites quotes out of context is common amoung our critics. See, for example, our response to Elder Olson's list of Ellen White contadictions.

6. DID GOD OR AN ANGEL SHUT THE DOOR OF NOAH'S ARK?

 EGW: ANGEL "An angel is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from heaven clothed with
brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door, and takes his course upward to
heaven again" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 68, written in 1864).

 EGW: GOD    "... God had shut it, and God alone could open it" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 98,
written in 1890).

 BIBLE: GOD 'Then the Lord shut him in" (Genesis 7:16).

 

Ellen White interchanges the words "angel" and "God."  See answer to #4 above.  (If we classified every time a prophet used the word "angel" for God as a "contradiction", then the Bible itself would be in trouble.)

For further study, see:

-Who is Michael the Archangel?

7. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD?

 EGW: YES "This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from
the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual Gifts, vol.
3, p. 301).

 BIBLE: NO    "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that
reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the
face of the whole earth" (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4).

 

One only needs to look in the table of contents in the book which contains the above quote (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3) to see whether or not Ellen White knew when the tower of Babel was built.  Note the order of the following chapters of that book:

VI. Crime Before the Flood
VII. The Flood
VIII. After the Flood
IX. Disguised Infidelity
X. Tower of Babel
XI. Abraham

Ellen White writes in the chapter entitled "Tower of Babel" these words:  "Some of the descendants of Noah soon began to apostatize.... They built them a city, and then conceived the idea of building a large tower to reach into the clouds..."

With this clear statement, along with the order of the chapters, it seems quite apparent that Ellen White understood when the Tower of Babel was built.  So why the statement that seems to indicate the Tower was built before the Flood?  The statement should have read "This system was corrupted before the flood, and by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the Tower of Babel."  It was corrected to read this way in the very next printing of the book.  The typo was caught by the editors long before any critic brought it up.  In 1866 the editor of Review and Herald magazine explained the typo and the needed correction to his subscribers, thus clearing up the whole issue.  Again, in light of all that was written about the Flood and Tower in Spiritual Gifts, no reasonable person could think that she, in one sentence, nullified the rest of the book.  The chapters speak for themselves.

For more info read the whole book 

8. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT TO ESCAPE ANOTHER FLOOD?

EGW: YES     "The dwellers on the plain of Shinar disbelieved God's covenant that He would not
again bring a flood upon the earth. Many of them denied the existence of God and attributed the
Flood to the operation of natural causes. ... One object before them in the erection of the tower was
to secure their own safety in case of another deluge. By carrying the structure to a much greater
height than was reached by the waters of the Flood, they thought to place themselves beyond all
possibility of danger. And as they would be able to ascend to the region of the clouds, they hoped to ascertain the cause of the Flood" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 119).

 BIBLE: NO    "Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the
heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole
earth'" (Genesis 11:4).

 

It is not a contradiction to give more information or details than the previous account (that is one of the purposes of prophets).  Ellen White in no way denies or contradicts what the Bible says, she is just giving more information.  All subsequent prophets would be "contradicting" Moses if we judged them this way.

9. WAS MOSES' WIFE ZIPPORAH, A "CUSHITE?"

EGW: YES     "(Miriam) complained of Moses because he married an Ethiopian (Cushite) woman"
(Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4, p. 19).  Note: parentheses in this quote supplied by D&D not EGW.

 EGW: NO      "Though called a 'Cushite woman' (Numbers 12:1, R.V.), the wife of Moses was a
Midianite, and thus a descendant of Abraham" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 383).

 BIBLE: YES  "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he
had married a Cushite" (Numbers 12:1).

 

Here Ellen White even quotes the Bible, affirming that Miriam had accused Moses of marrying an Ethiopian ("Cushite") woman, so she's obviously not trying to hide her "contradiction."  She's saying that Zipporah was called a "Cushite" and was from Midian.  The Bible itself agrees that she was indeed a Midianite (see Exodus 2:15,16; 3:1; 18:1 where her own father is described as "priest of Midian").  Zipporah was raised in Midian, according to the Bible.  No contradiction here; rather EGW supports the biblical evidence.

The following is number 2 in Dirk Anderson’s list of contradictions between Ellen G. Whites writings and the bible:

10. WERE THE ISRAELITES DESTROYED BY GLUTTONY? 


Ellen White:

"God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to eat till their gluttony produced a plague." -Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 148

The Bible:

"But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague." -Numbers 11:33

His comments:

"NOTE: The plague fell before the people could even eat the food. The people were punished for coveting, not gluttony. Coveting is a craving for something forbidden by God. Gluttony is habitual over-eating. Coveting and gluttony are two very different sins. Gluttony is never mentioned in Numbers 11:33-34. The Bible is clear the people died for the sin of craving. They never had a chance to be gluttons because they died while the food was still in their mouth, as the New King James Version says, "before it was chewed." The Israelites had violated the 10th commandment which forbids man from coveting that which is unlawful for him to have. Because craving or coveting is forbidden by God's covenant with Israel, God could execute capital punishment upon the lawbreakers. On the contrary, gluttony is not explicitly forbidden in God's covenant with Israel. So why would God punish people with death for a sin which was not forbidden in His covenant with Israel? God punishes people according to the degree of their sin. If the Israelites' sin was a violation of God's covenant with Israel (the 10 commandments) then God was justified in delivering the appropriate punishment for that violation--death in this case. However, gluttony was not a violation of the 10 commandments, and nowhere in the Bible do we find over-eating being punished by death."





Our Response:



We agree with Mr. Anderson that “coveting” was indeed one of the sins the Israelites committed that day. We disagree, however, that coveting was the only sin. Please notice with us the following verses within this same chapter:

Numbers 11:18-20
(18) And say thou unto the people, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow, and ye shall eat flesh: for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD, saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat? for it was well with us in Egypt: therefore the LORD will give you flesh, and ye shall eat.
(19) Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
(20) But even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which is among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?

Notice the prophecy given. He will give them the flesh they desired, and they shall eat it… “until it come out of your nostrils.” Is this not gluttony? This prophecy was confirmed by a “thus saith the Lord.” Verse 23:

Numbers 11:23
(23) And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

Mr. Anderson read only verses 32 through 34, and made heavy reference to the parts that speak about the food still within their teeth when they were consumed. Yet, couldn’t the food “yet within their teeth” be so “after” that whole month of gluttony? Yes Mr. Anderson, they did not yet swallow the food “that day” or more reasonably "at that moment." But prior to that day, they spent the “whole month” eating so much that the food became “loathsome” to them. Still skeptical? Even David tells us they ate the meat until they were "well filled:"

Psalm 78:26-31
(26) He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.
(27) He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea:
(28) And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations.
(29) So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;
(30) They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths,
(31) The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.

Our critic makes the following comment:

Coveting is a craving for something forbidden by God. Gluttony is habitual over-eating. Coveting and gluttony are two very different sins.

What? Dont you have to covet some food so much that you will over-eat it? Why commit gluttony? Is it not because you “desire” and “lust” after food which has already filled you up? How can one just “mistakenly” over-eat? Does he not “feel” in his tummy that he is full? Obviously, to over eat, he has to lust and desire that food so much so that he will sacrifice his health in order to eat some more.

We are also glad he mentions that gluttony is a “sin.” He goes on to speak of how it is not specifically mentioned in the Decalogue… yet admits it is a sin. Perhaps Mr. Anderson forgot our most famous verse:

“…sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4.

If gluttony truly is a sin, and we know it is (Numbers 11:2033,Proverbs 23:2021) then that means being a glutton violates God’s Ten Commandment law. And this was already shown above. One must "lust" (violate the tenth commandment) in order to over-eat. The bible teaches that when we break one law, we break them all (James 2:10). Therefore, to commit gluttony means to break the Ten Commandments. Also, the bible teaches that our bodies are the temple of "the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 3:16). What will happen to that person who mistreats his temple, with, perhaps, the sin of gluttony? Paul concludes:

1Corinthians 3:17
(17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall Goddestroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

So, even if they are different (and we still disagree that they are) whats really the difference? They'll both lead to the same result... for sin, "is the transgression of the law."

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2014   Created by Clark P.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service