Arik wrote, >Ellen White never wrote on this subject as her opinion! Maybe opinion was not the best choice of words. I am sure she tried to keep her thoughts out of the mix. But that is an impossible task, and not a task that God asks of a prophet. They write in their own words and words themselves are thoughts. >Truth is George Adam and Eve both were deceived, albeit differently, we do not need the SOP to come to that conclusion. Arik, if this is so obvious, then why did Paul use the difference between Adam *not* *being* deceived, and Eve *being* deceived to bolster his position that women should not teach men? Was Paul being deceptive? >The truth still remains that “Adam was NOT deceived, by the serpent, as was Eve.” Con 86.1. This is not saying Adam was not deceived at all. She never explains that in the passage. She leaves it as Adam was not deceived. She doesn't to correct it for nine years.
philmills wrote, >There is someone mixed up, but it is not the inspired Matthew. Did you find that article, that you linked to, satisfying? If so, you must be a believer in verbal inspiration. To me, the article was painful. I felt sorry for the authors. And after reading it, I was convinced even more that Matthew had just remembered wrong. As you pointed out, the authors wrote, >A superficial assessment of the surface tension between Matthew and Jeremiah fails to grasp the complexity and sophistication... Well I fail to see any room for complexity or sophistication in the phrase "what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet."
Kenneth wrote, >Bible study is not a matter of entertainment, George. I know. But when clowns study with clowns, it's bound to be entertaining. >She says both at the same time. You need to find a way to make sense of this that doesn't make Paul and a younger EGW into a lair in one instance and a truth teller in another. You are the one using the words liar and truth teller. I am saying she learned more. >She says both at the same time. That's the death knell for your theory. No it's not. First, she may not even have been aware of the change of her mind. Second, she was a prodigious author and had at least two researchers who would routinely compile previous statements of hers for her perusal when composing future articles and manuscripts. In that environment, a six year transition period is not unthinkable for something of lesser consequence. >If your prognostications lead you to determine that Paul lied and EGW lied for 14 years... Of course this is a lying whopper of a red herring.
> @rgw1957 > As far as I am concerned, this is the end of our conversation on this point. That's probably a good decision on your part. You seem to have trouble with comprehending what others are writing. I pointed out that for EGW to supposedly have used a point about verbal inspiration would not help to support the argument you are twisting out of her words. In other words, you claim that she was using a point about thought inspiration to make a certain point about logic. But the truth about thought inspiration does not help make the point you pretend that it does (as I have pointed out that men will pervert regardless of word or thought inspiration). You twist my words here (very much like you twist EGW's), missing my point altogether (as you have done several times and on several threads), and claim that I have set my judgement above that of the Holy Spirit and claimed EGW wrote things that are unhelpful. The truth is that my comments show nothing of the sort. What they do show is that I set my judgement above yours and affirm that you are hopelessly trying to use a point about thought inspiration to support an argument that, logically, it will not support because perverted men will pervert the Word with equal aplomb and enthusiasm whether they take the Word to be verbally inspired or thought inspired. It simply will make no difference for them. Your argument that it would/does is entirely illogical.
> @georgethe54th > Arik, if this is so obvious, then why did Paul use the difference between Adam not being deceived, and Eve being deceived to bolster his position that women should not teach men? Was Paul being deceptive? Paul's point is to show the woman's leading role in the introduction of sin, this is the reason for the subjection (not inequality btw). Paul is speaking about the relationship of men between women. Besides that George, Scripture clearly reveals that Adam was NOT deceived by the serpent (Satan). EGW, if I am not mistaken, is talking more about the fall of Adam and Eve, the tactics of Satan and how nothing is new about the law of sin and how it works the same on us today as it did in the garden. Adam clearly was deceived, just not in the same way as Eve. Cmon George, context is everything!
I think, Kenneth, that you are trying way too hard to "win" in an adversarial way, when we could have been having a friendly discussion. God will have the last word on this, including an investigation into why you chose to go adversarial.
Arik wrote, >Adam clearly was deceived, just not in the same way as Eve. Arik, do you really believe that Paul would have used it here if he believed that Adam was deceived just in a different way?
-"Arik, do you really believe that Paul would have used it here if he believed that Adam was deceived just in a different way?_" It doesn't matter George how Adam was deceived or to what degree he was deceived. Sin was introduced to Adam by Eve, period! Nothing changes this fact. Paul is not and does not need to deal with the intricalities of the fall, because they do not change this very important fact, which is: Eve introduced sin to Adam.
Arik, here is the problem I see with 1 Timothy 2:14. It opens the door for us to think that men are stronger morally than women. It sounds like that's what Paul is driving at. What we need to realize is that Adam and Eve handled temptation equally poorly. He didn't do better than she did. For six thousand years men have been thinking that Adam kept his head while Eve went loopy, and 1 Timothy 2:14 supports us in this falsehood. And this has been a big part of our justification for preferring male leadership. But the truth is that men aren't any better at dealing with temptation, or any other administrative task, than women. So we need to apologize for 6,000 years of gender bigotry.
If you would keep 1 Timothy 2:14 in perspective and not take into areas that do not matter, you may see it better. It has nothing to do with who is better at temptation or who has better administrative skills, nor is it about who may or may not have been deceived or to what degree. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water just because you have come across those that have abused Scripture. And George, it is Scripture, all of which is inspired. On this verse I like what the SDA Commentary has to say: The subordination of Eve to Adam following the entrance of sin in no way reflected dishonor on her, but was intended to bring harmony and to contribute to her fullest happiness (see on Gen. 3:16). As the husband is the head of the home, so he is the natural leader of a group of homes in a church congregation. 14. Adam was not deceived. It was Eve who was beguiled by the evil one (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3). Adam sinned with a full knowledge of the step he was taking. Because of his love for Eve he voluntarily chose to share the results of transgression with her (cf. Gen. 3:17). Woman being deceived. The apostle’s second argument for the submissiveness of women is that when Eve tried to assert leadership she was beguiled. There is no explanation for sin. Why Eve could be deceived by Satan, in the full light of God’s explicit command, is beyond rational explanation. Because of this tragic event, Paul sees added reason for counseling converted women not to attempt “to usurp authority over the man.” Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 7. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 296
Arik, Nicol is perpetuating the error Ellen White was correcting by dropping 1 Timothy 2:14. His words are not doing you any good. You should take a black marker and redact them. Nicol says, >Adam sinned with a full knowledge of the step he was taking. A more mature account would be that Adam was beguiled by Satan, working through Eve, just as surely as Eve was beguiled through the serpent. They both were overcome by the enemy because they separated and he could pick them off one at a time. >...when Eve tried to assert leadership she was beguiled. This is veiled misogyny. He comes close to mocking when he says she "tried to assert leadership." >Paul sees added reason for counseling converted women not to attempt [leadership]. Nicol understands what you seem to have a hard time seeing. Paul is saying women can't lead because they are easily beguiled when they *try*. Shame on we men.
> @georgethe54th > Paul is saying women can't lead because they are easily beguiled when they try. No, Paul is saying Eve introduced sin, and now for harmony and unity both parties have different roles. You do know George this "subjection" is the biblical kind?, not the world's subjection. Don't you see subjection as the way Jesus did by His life, death and ressurrection? Or how about the role of the Holy Spirit? Maybe George pro WO are fighting against the world's definition and example of subjection and it has crossed over into subjection as Scripture defines it and as Jesus was our example. There's a thought!? If that is the case, it sure shows that it is not the church impacting society, but the other way around.
Arik wrote, >No, Paul is saying Eve introduced sin, and now for harmony and unity both parties have different roles. No, that's what Ellen White says, and it sounds like you agree with her. But Nicol is correct, what Paul said was that Eve was morally weaker, and I think that's where Ellen White saw Paul was wrong.
George, Paul's argument is not coming from that angle, you are. Paul is coming from facts that can't be changed regardless of who was deceived or to what degree the deception took place. It is a fact that Adam was created first and it is a fact that Eve introduced sin to humanity. When we read of the fall in the writings of EGW, we see that Eve was deceived by the Serpent, and Adam sinned with full knowlege and only because of Eve. According to her his sin was presumption. My point being that it should be clear that both of their sins were different, albeit it led them both to reject God's word, the deception that took place was different. When EGW says both Adam and Eve were deceived, she is not rewriting Scripture or disagreeing with the inspired Paul. Presumption is closely connected to deception. It is also true that the serpent (satan) deceived Eve, and then she became his agent to deceive Adam. Satan used Adam's love for Eve against him to make Adam disregard God's word (that is a form of deception). The lesson is clear to me, the law of sin appeals to our passions, desires and appetites to override our reason, intent, and conscience. This is clear even against two perfect beings that had no propensities to sin. Which further shows us that 1) perfection is not the safeguard against sin 2) how much more important is it for us to rely on the Word of God given our nature is full of propensities to sin? And 3) the law of sin is a law that works a certain way, by appealing to our lower nature, thus overiding our inner man that says "wait a minute, God said...."
> @georgethe54th > I think that's where Ellen White saw Paul was wrong. Paul was writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore he could not be wrong. Keeping women silent in the churches, at least for a while, must have been God's will.
> @georgethe54th > You are the one using the words liar and truth teller. I am saying she learned more. > @georgethe54th > Of course this is a lying whopper of a red herring. Yes, I'm going to help you with some truth in advertising, George. You don't use the words for obvious reasons. But pointing out the truth here is no red herring. You are claiming that Paul said something that is untrue. Anyone with a modest command of the English language and basic logic can see that you are calling Paul a liar. While you do this, you pretend to be a careful, sophisticated student of the Word. You say you only came to this conclusion after lengthy and cautious study. As if that makes one iota of difference. That's like saying, "I thought about it real hard before I stole that car; I only did it because I really needed it." At the end of the day, we simply have you, an uninspired, self-proclaimed judge of the Word, identifying Paul as a liar. Your position here, George, is a gross one, and I would like you to be honest in your language so that your readers can clearly see just where you are coming from and just what you mean.
Arik, Francis Nicol saw Paul's position like I see it, and put it in bible commentary. You wrote, >Adam sinned with full knowledge... Eve also sinned with full knowledge, unless Adam withheld some information from her. >My point being that it should be clear that both of their sins were different, albeit it led them both to reject God's word, the deception that took place was different. I don't believe they were different. Different mediums were used, but Eve presumably conveyed the serpent's words to Adam accurately and Adam could see the same apparent benefits to Eve from eating the fruit. The temptations were essentially identical. >When EGW says both Adam and Eve were deceived, she is not rewriting Scripture or disagreeing with the inspired Paul. No, it is a possibility, since he started the passage with the first person pronoun, that she is disagreeing with uninspired Paul in this verse.
Kenneth wrote, >Anyone with a modest command of the English language and basic logic can see that you are calling Paul a liar. He would only be a liar if he knew he was wrong when he wrote it.
So, according to your definition, George, intent determines whether or not one is speaking truth? So, if a person tells you something that is factually true, but they think it is a lie, have they told the truth or a lie? I think that being deceived is a matter separate from that of lying. Whether he was deceived or not is one question. Another question is whether or not he told the truth. Your answer to the question of whether or not he told the truth, is "no." According to you, Paul did not tell the truth. That's called telling a lie, from Pre-K on up. It matters not whether he meant to be dishonest. Making him an ignorant liar won't help you here George. Come on, fess up, you are calling Paul, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, a liar, aren't you?
No, Saul may have been a liar, but Paul wasn't. >So, if a person tells you something that is factually true, but they think it is a lie, have they told the truth or a lie? That person has lied. The person is a liar.