I am so frustrated by the infantile nature of this quarters lessons. It is sort of like they are written by a someone in Kindergarten. Take for instance this from Sunday's lesson:
A third possibility is that the sun was already in existence but was
obscured by clouds or volcanic dust and was not visible or fully
functional until the fourth day. One can compare this possibility with
the planet Venus, where a similar situation occurs today.
Somehow created suddenly becomes made visible " Gen 3:16 "Then God made two great 4lights" Or what about the third possiblity that of volcanic dust...are they trying to tell us that God used natural processes, actual destructive processes in his creation? I wish they would acknowledge the obvious but they really aren't.
They of course know that the sun moon and stars made on the 4th day does not work. There would be no water on the earth without a sun anyway, it would just be a solid ball of ice. No ocean, no liquid water. They also have to know that light created on the first day is not the light of God. If as they assert God is light then He has always been light He would not have to create himself as light on the first day.
If you want to make the verses in Genesis literal...well it just does not work anyway you slice it. But foolish people keep trying. Of course venus is not dark just because of their methane clouds the planet very likely sees the light of the sun during it's day. But sad to say the lesson quarter assumes really strange things. But really should our religion be based on strange and foolish assumptions...I think not.
I am going to interrupt the review of the book previously mentioned because this weeks Lesson Study Guide is designed to counter the type of criticism mentioned in my last post review of It’s Okay Not To Be A Seventh-day Adventist. Specifically I will deal with February 3 lesson because unlike many other lessons in our history this lesson deals with a specific statement of Ellen White which many cite as a false prophecy. Here is what the lesson says:
The fulfillment of most prophecies (exceptions are the end-time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation) is dependent on the actions and attitudes of the people concerned. Jonah made the clear-cut statement, given him from God, that in 40 days Nineveh would be “overturned” (Jonah 3:4, NIV). Yet, it never happened. Was Jonah a false prophet? Of course not. Instead, the prophecy was conditional; its fulfillment depended upon how the people responded to the message God had given them.
This principle may explain why a particular prophecy made by Ellen White in 1856 did not come to pass. In 1856, Mrs. White declared: “I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’ ”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 131, 132.
All who were alive way back then are now, of course, dead. How do we explain this? The answer is conditional prophecy. We must remember that she was told God’s kingdom could have come in her lifetime. In 1896 she wrote: “If those who claimed to have a living experience in the things of God had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would have been warned ere this, and the Lord Jesus would have come in power and great glory.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 6, 1896.
In the last volume of the Testimonies for the Church, published in 1909, she wrote, “If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind. While men have slept, Satan has stolen a march upon us.”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 29. If we apply the principle of conditionality to her 1856 vision, the problem disappears. See also Friday’s lesson.
to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
to be reversed
to be overturned, be overthrown
to be upturned
(Hithpael)
to transform oneself
to turn this way and that, turn every way
(Hophal) to turn on someone
So even if Jonah thought, or hoped Nineveh would be destroyed; to turn away, turn from,to change or reverse their course are all legitimate meanings for the word used. Jonah may have thought his prophecy failed but that would only be if a certain meaning is used to the exclusion of other meanings. The story is pretty clear that Jonah wanting the city to be destroyed even if God did not. There are also the other problems with the book of Jonah used to compare to Ellen White’s food for worms quote. First there are only 8 words recorded of Jonah’s message. If we assume that those were the only 8 words then we have a problem logically because why would anyone listen to a stranger in town repeating those words. At some point you would have to assume he identifies who he is and who his God is. The other problem with using Jonah as a comparison is that there is a pretty even split between Biblical scholars whether the book is supposed to be literal history or an analogy; a parable to demonstrate the grace of God over the nation of Israel’s tendency to self importance. Since there has never been any evidence that Nineveh worshiped the God of Israel I tend to think it is meant as a parable.
Next there is the possibility of conditional prophecies, but they are not all conditional and simply saying the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are not conditional because they say so is pretty poor reasoning. In any case the verse which is most applicable to Jonah’s prophecy is found in Jeremiah as the lesson study guide mentioned:
Jeremiah 18:6-10 (New International Version)
6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Is that applicable to Ellen White statement where she said:
I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said (132) the angel: "Some food for worms, [SISTER CLARISSA M. BONFOEY, WHO FELL ASLEEP IN Jesus ONLY THREE DAYS AFTER THIS VISION WAS GIVEN, WAS PRESENT IN USUAL HEALTH, AND WAS DEEPLY IMPRESSED THAT SHE WAS ONE WHO WOULD GO INTO THE GRAVE, AND STATED HER CONVICTIONS TO OTHERS.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." {1T 131.3}
Solemn words were these, spoken by the angel. I asked the angel why so few were interested in their eternal welfare, so few preparing for their last change. Said he: "Earth attracts them, its treasures seem of worth to them." They find enough to engross the mind, and have no time to prepare for heaven. Satan is ever ready to plunge them deeper and deeper into difficulty; as soon as one perplexity and trouble is off the mind, he begets within them an unholy desire for more of the things of earth; and thus their time passes, and, when it is too late, they see that they have gained nothing substantial. They have grasped at shadows and lost eternal life. Such will have no excuse. {Vol 1 Testimonies to the Church p. 132.1}
Clearly the angel gives no conditions in fact Ellen White asks the angel why people are not preparing for their last change and makes it clear there is no excuse if they are not ready and lose eternal life. It is quite the opposite of a conditional prophecy. The lady mentioned here and in Ellen White’s book “Spiritual Gifts” certainly did not think it was conditional as Ellen White writes:
Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, "I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms.” The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work. {Vol 2 Spiritual Gifts p. 208.2}
Jeremiah’s statement is specifically for a “nation or kingdom” Ellen White is addressing a group of people at a conference, not even the SDA church because they did not exist yet. Jeremiah also says that if someone prophesies something good then you really know they are true because it is too easy to prophecy troubles:
(Jeremiah 28:8 NIV)From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms 9. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true."
Ellen White’s food for worms prophecy also includes the very best news; “translated at the coming of Jesus”. Ellen White’s statement fails to meet any of the conditions of Jeremiah’s statements.
What about the method the Lesson Study guide uses, it is the same method the White Estate uses when it quotes Ellen White’s explanation that if people had done their duty Christ would have returned before the time she made the statement. How would we verify the accuracy of that statement? If we allowed that type of reasoning then it would be impossible to ever show anyone to be a false prophet. All that so called prophet would have to do is give an excuse why their prophecy did not occur (the excuse being in the form of another prophetic statement). Rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that Armageddon and the consummation of the age would occur in 1914. When Armageddon did not occur it became the invisible return of Christ and began to rule in heaven. Click here for more.
There is no doubt if Jeremiah’s conflict with the false prophet Hananiah had used the rules as interpreted by the Lesson Study guide above prophets would have lost all meaning as what they said could or could not happen and their would be no consequence either way. Any so called prophet can prophesy their way out of any failed prophesies.
Ultimately it makes prophecy meaningless and testing of prophets worthless.
Post modern people are characterized by asking questions, Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally felt they have the answers. Why then are not Post Modern Americans rushing to visit Seventh-day Adventist churches?
I somehow got on a mailing list for a company selling banners and signs to churches. One of the featured pre-made signs was something to the effect of “you have questions, we have answers”. I have yet to see any of the local churches here using that sign but I am certain that many churches think that they indeed have the answers. The Lesson study for this week is about how Paul dealt with the culture of his time and established Christian congregations.How similar is Post Modern America to the culture of Paul’s day? The lesson for Tuesday July 8 states:
“One of Paul's most well-known missionary endeavors occurred in Athens, home of some of the world's greatest philosophers of antiquity, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. And yet, how interesting: Even with all the philosophy and all its appeals to reason and logic, the city was still "wholly given to idolatry" (Acts 17:16). What a testimony to how, in the end, philosophy cannot answer basic human needs. “
Consider that Socrates was tried for “corrupting the youth and disbelieving in the ancestral gods.”[1] It is not too likely that such a charge would be made against the philosophers of this age whether in the form of Rap/Rock music, TV, books or straight out philosophers, though other then a few atheists it is unlikely we could even name a current philosopher. Instead our lesson study would have been more accurate in saying it is a testimony to the time when superstition was more believable than reason.Today reason is often subjected to popularity; popularity being dictated by the media at least for many of our nation.
While Paul is a good case study in getting things done he is of another time and place. The here and now and the tomorrow will call for different methods to reach a very different people. In America we are not unfamiliar with Christianity or Christian concepts. The majority believe in a heaven (76%) for the people who live good lives and a hell (71%)[2] for those who live bad lives. That is clearly a wonderful sociological tool to get people to live together hopefully trying to be good. At least until we determine what it is to live a good life versus a bad life, I would not want to try and do a poll on that question (only half of 1% think they are headed for hell).
The lesson for Wednesday says:
“Paul understood that before we can lead people to where we want them to be we must first meet them where they are. That means focusing on their needs, their interests-and shaping our message in a way that connects with them. This does not mean watering down the message. It is just an issue of communication-talking to people in terms and in language they can understand.”
Is our Adventist Christianity focusing on people’s needs and interests or have we determined that our so called “distinctives” cannot be “watered down”? My guess is that this is one of the biggest sticking points in the Adventist church leadership that prevents us from reaching people’s needs and interests. People need a connection with others and acceptance and respect as well as an opportunity to grow in understanding as they and we search for truth and relevance in our lives. If we assume that another Christian is nominal or Apostate because he or she worships God on a different day then we do, how are we going to relate to them on more important issues such as the character of God. Because that is really what it is all about, not our distictives whatever they may be whether health issues or apocalyptic interpretations. Our goal has to be to declare the beauty of God that is revealed through Jesus Christ. We are all probably poor imitators of the love and acceptance that Jesus Christ revealed which is why it is so important that we point to Him. Yet to reach the post modern world we have to reach out in friendship to them, not with the attitude that we have all the answers but that we have one answer, Jesus Christ. That one answer is reasonable because of what it can lead to in people’s lives.
Before the Post moderns come beating down our doors we will need to have churches that create friendships, within the church first spreading outward. Well maybe that is not so different from Paul’s day as they really did work to create a community that looked after each other. As much as some things change some things still remain the same.
Since I am presenting the Sabbath school Lesson this week I thought I would put in the blog as it does reflect upon some of the subjects presented here over the last month.
The Subject for the quarter is Jesus and this week is the mystery of Jesus’ Deity. Last week our leader went over the historical controversies that divided the Christian church for the first 500-600 years. It is important to remember that the battle over who Jesus is not solved because the ruling churches at that time or subsequent say they have figured it out and presented a creed. The winners of histories battles can claim their victories but that does not make their victories truth and that became the problem of orthodoxy. The winning Christians declared their beliefs as orthodox and anything else heresy. Thus began the decent into traditionalism and away from reasoned faith.
So the mystery of Jesus’ deity may not be so much a mystery as much as simply making sense of what we have and then putting it together in a reasonable fashion.
For Christians as for anyone else dealing with philosophical ideas the first question is what do we need to know about God once we have determined that there is a need to conceive of a God. Assuming the Jewish Scriptures to be inspired we see a God who has a special people He raises up through no part of their own. The writers present a God who is loving and forgiving, cruel and ruthless. Who will kill His own people if they disobey (death sentences for Sabbath breakers, Adultery and rebellious children) and will tell His nation to wholesale kill other nations. Who said in the 10 commandments don’t murder and then told the Israelites to kill all of a people including the children and animals.
(1 Sam 15:3 KJV)Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
We are left with a picture of God which is frankly very confusing, even more confusing with our modern sensibilities but then our modern sensibilities are shaped by material which presents God in a less confusing light then that of the blood and guts of the Old testament stories. (see Judges 21 for a horrible story of cruelty by Israel,
(Judg 21:11 KJV)And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.(Judg 21:12 KJV)And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.)
So our natural question is what is God like and how do we relate to this God?
At Sinai the Children of Israel pleaded for Moses to talk to God and stop the fearful voice of God
(Exo 20:18 NIV)When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance (Exo 20:19 NIV)and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
From then on the messages were relayed through prophets. Until New Testament times.
(Heb 1:1 NIV)In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, (Heb 1:2 NIV)but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Heb 1:3 NIV)The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
What is God like is the most important question we have to ask, is He worthy of worship, is He worthy of trust? Any being with enough power can enforce worship, respect can be produced out of shear fear but love never can be produced that way and trust is never obtained through fear.
Anyone could have come and made claims about God, people or angels but that would not have revealed the character of God it would have only been what someone was saying about God maybe true maybe not we would either have to take their word for it or not. In reality the only one who can reveal the character of God is God. It was the question that we had to ask and the only answer could come from God Himself.
Our question is philosophical and our question was philosophically answered by the book of John in the first chapter. It is an answer to the questions that were being asked at the time the book was written who is Jesus is He the Spirit that brings secret knowledge as the Gnostic claimed, is He the God who is in opposition to the wrathful God in the Old Testament as Marcion put forth. Or one of those other views we discussed last week. John presents Jesus as the Logos. We translate that as the Word but it had a much more specific philosophical meaning. Logos:
In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.
Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves.
In Stoicism, the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason residing in the human soul.
The source, the principle governing the universe, you really can’t miss what John is saying Jesus Christ is God. He is the argument for God revealed to humans, the argument that answers some of our important questions. Only God can answer the question of what God is like, not a man, not an angel, not a man who lives a perfect life even if he depends upon God for everything he does. That would not be God only God as God reveals His character.
You may think the debate about who Jesus is was completed a long time ago. But in fact even in the Adventist church today there are people who want to remove God from Jesus who want to stress the man Jesus as separate from God, someone who really lived as a man to show us that a man can live a perfect life if he depends upon God. These people destroy the whole philosophical argument of the New Testament. They are simply teaching a different gospel.
Spectrum Magazine Online Sabbath School column offers a brilliant commentary on this weeks Sabbath School lesson. Of course the beauty of a blog is that you are not limited by length so here is the unabridged version of the commentary.
The Lesson Study Guide presents this statement for Wednesday December 26:
Clearly, something much more was happening here than just the death, however unfairly, of an innocent man. According to Scripture, God's wrath against sin, our sin, was poured out upon Jesus. Jesus on the cross suffered not sinful humanity's unjust wrath but a righteous God's righteous indignation against sin, the sins of the whole world. As such, Jesus suffered something deeper, darker, and more painful than any human being could ever know or experience.
The statement is based not upon the texts they had just asked their readers to look up.Matt. 27:45, Matt. 27:51, 52, Mark 15:38For none of those say anything about God’s wrath poured out upon Jesus. In fact you will not find even one New Testament verse which says that God poured out His wrath upon Jesus, none that even say that Jesus paid a penalty for sin in fact. Which when you think about it makes perfect since because as John Chapter 1 indicates Jesus is God. It would make little sense to pour your wrath out upon yourself. Even if you did inflict injury upon yourself what would be the point. The medieval monks practiced flagellation as a means of penance. The practice apparently grew out of the administration of floggings to erring monks. But is that really the kind of penance that God wants? Certainly that is not what any New Testament authors recommend.
So what does God gain if we assume he is not cutting off His nose to spite His face as the phrase goes, indicating that one disadvantages themselves in order to do harm to an adversary. Who is the adversary here? Certainly not Christ yet that appears to be who receives the wrath if the above quote is to be believed. What if sin is the adversary? Can you hurt sin? Does sin feel pain or remorse or anything? No, sin is not an individual that can feel, think or act; sin is the attitude of the sinner. In fact sin is not something that can be moved from here to there or from then to now, let alone from all people from all time to one person at one time in the past. The only way that this could work is if sin actually had some physical or mystical reality (though that would not work for sin yet uncommitted). It is rather like in a quantum theory one could say that when one sinned it spun off and formed its own universe. But it is a doubtful proposition and just as a multiverse was unknown in the New Testament times it is also doubtful that anyone thought of sin as an actual substance that existed apart from the thinking individual whose sin produced a thought or action.
Christ in the crucible is not about Jesus suffering under the wrath of God. It was not the wrath of God that placed Jesus on the cross it was the actions…sinful actions of human beings who rejected their creator. As Acts 3:15 says: “You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.” (NIV) Eight texts in the New Testament assert it was humans who killed Jesus, and not one indicates that God killed Christ (Matt. 16:21; Luke 24:20; Acts 2:23, 3:13, 5:30, 7:52, 10:39; 1 Thess. 2:14-15). In fact as a sacrifice, God is presenting Christ as the sacrifice (Romans 3:25), something God offers us not something to satisfy God’s indignation against sin. The sacrifice of atonement, at-one-ment and that means reconciliation. God reaching out to man because justice in God’s view is not something based upon punishment but upon returning man back to harmony, a positive relationship with God.
We are in the crucible of our own making and our God came down to that crucible polluted and cruel though it is to show us that He loves us and wants us to have a loving, trusting, friendship with God. Not as an angry God or a God who punishes the innocent to free the guilty, but as a God who loves supremely, who is eager to forgive and who will do what He promises even to raising us to life just as Christ was raised from death inflicted by people who rejected their own creator.
There are many people in the Adventist church who no longer trust the information that is supplied in the Sabbath School Lesson Study Guide. For quite a while it has tried to exhort Traditional Adventist views even when they have to stretch the truth. As the new Quarter begins with the topic of marriage, the authors naturally begin with the story of Adam and Eve, even though there is precious little about their relationship, speculation has always been the main way people deal with the first chapters of Genesis and the Lesson Study Guide continues the tradition. The Lesson Study Guide for July 4 writes:
Read Genesis 3:1-6. Several elements in the narrative suggest that Eve was alone when she succumbed to the temptation. (1) The serpent addresses only the woman. (2) Adam seems absent and is not mentioned till Eve gives him the fruit. (3) Adam is cursed only for listening to his wife and not for listening to the serpent.
Several versions of the Bible and certain commentaries suggest that Adam was with Eve at the time she was tempted (Gen. 3:6). The Hebrew has several words that may be translated "with." Two important ones are etzel and im. The latter is used in this passage.
Etzel is the preposition that is used to denote location beside or next to something. (See Gen. 39:15, 18.) By contrast, im denotes relationship. "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8, 10 begins with the preposition im and means "God with us." It is a relational position and not geographical. Genesis 3:6 therefore does not strictly demand that we see Adam positioned beside Eve when she is tempted. Adam used the same preposition in Genesis 3:12 to remind God about the woman He had put with him. It is a relational "with." Had he been with her, she might not have succumbed. "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 danger from temptation than if she were alone."—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53.
The most obvious problem is that the vast majority of English language Bibles include “with her” the few that don’t have “with” still imply the idea. For example the (TEV) “So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it.“ The second problem is that in the Hebrew the word for “with” is not used. The Lesson Study Guide falsely claims that the Hebrew “im” (Strong’s # 5973) is used in the passage in Gen 3:6. The word “with” is used in English to translate the thought from the Hebrew into our language, it is not a Hebrew word used in the original text. Even the use of “im” given by the Lesson Study Guide is inaccurate as the “im” they address is a root used in the Hebrew word for Immanuel but just like our English words, the root for Butterfly is butter but the connection to butter and butterfly is not substantially the same, it is merely some aspect of butter, namely a color which in many butterflies would not even be similar to the type of butterfly one may encounter. The Lesson Study Guide asserts that the use of “im” is relationship oriented rather then location oriented because they are using the root word used in Immanuel rather the way “im” is used by itself in a Hebrew text. When used as the Lesson indicates it would appear the way it does in the actual first use of “im” (Update According to the Englishman's Concordance, according to this lexicon the first use is in Gen 18:23 " destroy the righteous with the wicked?") in the Old Testament used in Gen 48:12 “And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth.” (KJV) (Where Joseph introduces his little children to Jacob.) The following is how Strong’s Lexicon defines the word:
5973`im (eem); from 6004; adverb or preposition, with (i.e. in conjunction with), in varied applications; specifically, equally with; often with prepositional prefix (and then usually unrepresented in English):KJV-- accompanying, against, and, as (X long as), before, beside, by (reason of), for all, from (among, between), in, like, more than, of, (un-) to, with (-al).
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, popularly used in the first century includes the word for “with” in the text. The Greek is metaFrom The LXX: meta; a primary preposition (often used adverbially) transliterated spelling Meta (met-ah') meaning; with, after, behind. As with the Hebrew it is not restricted to relationship usage.
What about the Lesson Study Guide’s “elements” that suggest that Eve was alone, despite the overwhelming scholarship of Bible translators? The elements, as are so much of the Genesis account, subjects of speculation. The story is very brief and details are very few. Rather than assuming that the intent of the story is to tell us that Eve was alone because the serpent only talks with Eve, we could also speculate the authors intent was to show the weak nature of a woman, (see 1 Timothy 2:14) this is what happens when man is silent and lets the woman direct conversation. While these are both speculative the idea that makes women appear weak is most contextually consistent with the curses subsequently given, (Genesis 3:16“he will rule over you.") as well as the historical evidence of the Patriarchal system which is found throughout Genesis and the Old Testament.
One could also speculate that the reason for Eve being the only one to talk to the serpent was because in a perfect world there was no need for one to look after the other. No patriarchal worldview, a woman could actually speak for herself and think for herself. A woman did not need to have man’s permission to talk. This is a very empowering feminist ideal but contextually and culturally not likely the reason. Maybe the reason for the conversation between Eve and the serpent is because it would be a more directliterary device to write the account that way. The reason why the Lesson Study Guide needs to stretch the truth so far is very likely that they are attempting to make the actual Biblical account correlate with the account that Ellen White wrote. Even though there is nothing in the Creation account about Adam and Eve having conversations with angels or having any knowledge of Satan or offering sacrifices, those areas of omission are not as troublesome as having the Biblical account specifically go against the account written by Ellen White.
It would seem that even though the Lesson Study Guide tried to create a fictional word usage to reconcile Ellen White’s version with the Bible they have still left themselves in an untenable position. Now the first sin was not eating the fruit but Eve’s disobedience in not following the instructions of God delivered to her by the angels to remain by Adam’s side. Even worse, God would then be punishing Adam for ignorance because if he was not with Eve he would have no way of knowing about the source of the fruit Eve gave him. I applaud the Lesson Study Guide for being willing to deal with this discrepancy rather then ignoring it as has been done for many years. But very clearly they have overstepped logic and common sense.
