Great! For your convenience, I have reposted here (from this post) the exegetical Biblical foundational basis for my view on the Plagues.

Exod 4:21 - God says in advance to Moses that: ‘He will harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he will not let the people go.’

Exod 7:13 - (Rod-to-Serpent Miracles) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened

1. Exod 7:22 (Blood) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened
2. Exod 8:15 (Frogs) - Pharaoh begs relief, promises freedom (8:8) but “causes his heart to be heavy” (#03513) = Hiphil here (vs. naturally be, or have it forcefully made to be, “hardened” (#02388), including by God.)
3. Exod 8:19 (Gnats) - Pharaoh’s heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened
4. Exod 8:32 (Flies) - Pharaoh bargains (8:28) but then causes his heart to be “heavy” (#03513) = Hiphil
5. Exod 9:7 (Livestock Diseased) - Pharaoh saw that no Israel livestock was affected (9:7a) but ‘caused his heart to be “heavy”’ (#03513) = Hiphil
6. Exod 9:12 (Boils) - Magicians cannot stand before Moses (8:11) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart
7. Exod 9:34, 35 (Hail) - Pharaoh, with cessation of plague of Plague, ‘caused his heart to be “heavy”’ (#03513) = Hiphil (9:34) and thus his heart was (naturally = Qal) hardened. (9:35)
8. Exod 10:20 (Locust) - Pharaoh concedes (10:11) and asks for forgiveness (10:16-18) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart
9. Exod 10:27 (Darkness) - Pharaoh concedes (10:24) but Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he threatens Moses with death for any future return. (10:28)
10. Exod 11:9, 10; 13:15 (Death of Firstborn) - Yahweh (forcefully = Piel) hardened Pharaoh’s heart

Exod 14:4, 8, 17 - God continues to harden Pharaoh heart after the Exodus, so that he would chase after the Israelites while they were on their journey, in order to destroy the Egyptians armies in the Red Sea.

(See also Exod 3:21, 22; 11:2, 3; 12:33, 35-36; Psa 105:37, 38).

Based on all of this, it seems to me that God fulfilled His promise of hardening Pharaoh’s heart only when it was necessary. (I.e., Plague #6, 8, 9, 10). Otherwise Pharaoh either “naturally” (Qals) did this or “caused it to become the case” (Hiphils) on his own. EGW states in PP 268 that:


however I see this as not an “I was shown statement” but only a reasoned understanding, and, as seen in the exegetical indicators in that Biblical episode, God Himself did “forcefully” bring about this hardening result, indeed when Pharaoh conceded defeat, in at least four of the plagues and also following the plagues in the Military Expedition.


I rather see it, as God Himself states in e.g, Exod 7:3, 4; 11:9 that this hardening was actively done by God, when needed, so that: ‘God’s wonders will be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’

It sounds like you don't really believe what EGW says, that you believe in a God of violence whether you whitewash it or not, and that you see nothing wrong with killing others if it suits your purpose (as long as it's for a good reason).

Do you see why I can understand why the Inquisition, and Hitler, was allowed (the people permitted rather than rebelled) to happen and will happen in the future?

The cry of the mob rules the day and all the people saw no problem -- because it was "just".
Kill the Infidel!
It's God's way.

In this case, No, as the “Greater Light of the Bible” unequivocally states otherwise and the two views are not reconcilable. So in such a case, as always, the comments/view of EGW are deemed to be in error. This is the objective approach of deciding between the Bible and EGW’s comment, vs. your subjective approach based on your private view/philosophy on killing vs. murder. And, as already clearly stated, I do see a difference between EGW and the SOP, with the latter being direct (“I was shown”) revelations from God and the former being her comments based upon her Theological/Biblical understandings.



I don’t see justice and the execution of a sentence as violence, especially when done by the Inerrant, Perfect and Just (among many other Character traits of His), God I believe in and serve, as He has consistently revealed Himself to be in the Bible.



Exacting Justice and Defending oneself in war is not ‘suiting one’s purpose’. That cause is indeed a ‘good one.’



Simply said: “No”.



It objectively and Biblically, clearly was not.



Only if it actually is the Truth and is God’s express mandate and that includes having a just cause. Only God can state when this is to be done. Indeed I see these actions in the OT consistently being directly and explicitly ordered by God when they had to be done.

I hope you weren’t saying/implying that the Inquisition and/or Hitler’s atrocities were God’s Way or even Will??

If you want to disprove me on this, you’ll have to make exegetical and Biblical arguments, rather then these peripheral and philosophical ones. Even attacking me personally won’t work nor prove anything. My views are shaped by the concrete truth of the Bible and not fickle and subjective human reasoning!

(1) In regards to your view on the Tree of Life and man’s life in this thread: Both APL and Mountain Man have stated that it is what perpetuates life as stated in the Bible and SOP (e.g., Gen 3:22-24 & PP 60.3). I don’t know what kland’s view is on this.

(2) The reason why “osmosis” is my only remaining logical option for your view is because you state that man lives eternally by the death of Christ, however you do not explain/point out how mortal man is supposed to live eternally. You further do not take into any substantive consideration what the Bible and SOP say about the physical contribution of the Tree of Life, including in Heaven for the redeemed. Your claim that ‘it is only to a lesson of dependence upon God is outrightly without any Bible or SOP support. It is entirely borne out of your view.

If the Redeemed are to receive bodies that could live eternally then (a) that makes them have immortality tangibly contained in themselves, but the Bible is clear that only God has immortality; (b) why were Adam and Eve never said in the Bible or SOP to have such immortal bodies.

That is why is can only see osmosis as the only logical option left to explain how God can make mortal created beings live for ever.



It, substantively speaking, actually is the only option left.



For the reasons stated throughout this thread and summarized in the response above, I unequivocally, certainly do not believe this as it is contrary to what the Bible and the SOP plainly say. Where are you seeing that ‘this is obvious’??



Again, the premise for that statement is Biblically unfounded, nonetheless, continual breathing is indispensable to remaining alive, so I don’t see what your logic/point is here.



That is a circular reasoning based upon a Biblical and scientific fallacy. Therefore it does not begin to be true/valid. So faced with such a choice of the Bible&SOP vs. your unfounded and unscientific rationalization, I can, and will, only choose the Bible and SOP.



The only SOP statement you provided for this view of yours is DA 764.1. We have already discussed this and I do not see that an organic relationship is being taught, but a statement that sin, when allowed to full develop, is deserving of death. The Bible verses that you have cited have all been answered before in this post. So you’ll need to provide other supposed support your claim from the many that you say there are. If these are your most clear cut/prominent than I suspect that the rest are similarly mere proof-text and, substantively-speaking, unsupportable conjecture.



First of all you’ll first need to provide other texts to support your view as stated above, secondly Bible writers understood that what needed to be focused on was the return to Paradise which would automatically restore access to intermediary Tree. So that is what they did. In the Old Covenant they focused on the typifying Sanctuary Service, in the New Covenant on the anti-type Jesus Christ, Our Lamb and High Priest. Jesus merges the way between mortal Man and an Immortal God so that this eternal Life can be possible, physically conveyed/transmitted through the Tree to be ingested by the Redeemed.



In the full context of that DA chapter, as explained throughout this thread, I understand it as ‘sin is shown to be deserving of death. That is what needed to be clearly demonstrated and understood.



Again I don’t contextually see this understanding and, furthermore, that death, even the second death, if sin has not naturally done so by reaching a “critical mass” stage, distinctly for both First and Second Death, has had to, and will have to be, actively achieved by God.



I agree with these, however I further see the also present concrete, Biblical realities in these to be:

1. We indeed have all chosen to sin and since Adam and Eve’s first sin, the possibility for a sinner to live forever has been removed.
2.Jesus provides all of the necessary Legal/Spiritual requirements for man to be purged of all traces of sin and live forever again.
3.When we accept that gift in faith, we allow God to take the necessary concrete measures to make this full restoration a reality again, just like it had been at the begin of His Creation on this Planet prior to the Fall.



Defaulty giving the benefit of any doubt to God, I go by the foundational theological tenet that nothing that God does is void of any substantive meaning or without any tangible and concrete necessity. To me, the Tree of Life is the easiest way to see this, as it serves as the mean through which an immortal God can dispense the necessary “supernatural powers” to mortal creation and man so that they can perpetually live. Living a quality life is however distinct of that physical reality and depends and the Spiritual choices of man, as God knew and stated that a sinner can live forever by eating of that Fruit.



As I stated previously in this thread, I believe that we have been created to the best design of God for a mortal (intelligent, free-willed) being. Indeed it would be reckless of God to invest in free-willed with abilities that could do great damage should they rebel. These extra abilities are temporarily given as the need/mission is (e.g., Samson’s strength). As I said and defended before, angels need to be tangibly outfitted with wings so that they can fly own their own to fulfill their “occupation” as God’s messengers to all created worlds throughout His Universe, among other functions.



You need to cite at least another 3 from your supposed “thousands of statements” because the ones you cited did not exegetically check out. I see many more statements in the Bible and SOP on the Tree of Life than just three, and these in various presentations of its use and function. Furthermore, and according to proper hermeneutics, these are found in a context of God’s perfect plan and a sinless world. SO they indeed do have a Theological prominence and are foundational to how we are to understand how Man was always meant to live. As I said, Jesus came to fully restore that Perfect Plan of God.

Everything!!! Again: “Where the notion of “‘similar mental bias’ here??”

“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth. Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life. Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.” Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said. More on this point at the end of this post.


Where in the Bible does it progress to the point it says, in the immediate context – “The death and destruction herein described was caused by Jesus withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? I realize Ellen says so concerning specific situations, which you believe must be applied to every situation, but where in the Bible is it plainly stated in the immediate context?

Also, how early in the biblical record did God articulate the withdraw-permit principle of punishment? The reason I’m asking is to understand why, if He explained it in the beginning, and the chosen people were already aware of it, why didn’t He remind them of it whenever circumstances forced Him to do it?

Surely it would have helped them avoid adding insult to injury by concluding God, rather than Satan, was directly responsible for causing death and destruction. Isn’t that what a loving, merciful, compassionate Lord and Savior would do? Why run the risk of being misunderstood when simply reminding them of the truth could prevent it?

Of course, if Jesus didn't say anything about it (the withdraw-permit principle of punishment) until much later on, then it stands to reason they had no idea early on God wasn't directly responsible for causing death and destruction. But then who can blame them for getting it wrong if God never explained it to them? They simply took God at His word when He told them He was going to cause death and destruction.


Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?


I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?


I’m sorry you misread the question. Please know that it was an honest question. At any rate, I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.


Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.” “He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.

Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God. When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded.

I'm not clear if a "I was shown" statement can be contrary to Scripture, and thus be disregarded as well, (but not as readily as a statement not prefaced by "I was shown), or if shouldn't be disregarded at all.

This is just your opinion. There are many scholars who agree with what Ellen White wrote.

I've seen "strengthen" given as a suggested translation, so that the idea is that God gave Pharaoh strength to do that which was already in his heart to do.

Those who would take the Kingdom of heaven by violence have it, it being this: "It speaks of forcefully acting with a mindset and not pointedly to the physicality involved. It involves changing a bias mindset."

Looks like you confirmed I was correct on your views, but maybe I'm wrong about the Inquisition.

OK, I'll listen. Could you explain why you think the Inquisition came about with God fearing people approving of it? While a few may have participated knowing it was not "just" or correct or right, the way something so large, so encompassing could come about is if the majority of the people believed in it. And they didn't believe they were going against God, but believed they were following God. What or how was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?