Just a slight, but discussion-significant specification to a statement that I had made variously in this thread, having recently actually looked into that part of my manuscript on the Seventy Weeks and recollecting exactly what I had written along with further studies:

The issue of the Jews withholding their and the cause of their war with the Romans was actually a thematically related converse issue. It was rather that “the High Priest Eleazar had suddenly decided that the Jews should not receive any gift or sacrifice for any foreigner and persuaded those in the Temple services to go along with this policy. Josephus adds that “this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account. (Josephus, War of the Jews, 2:17.2 [#409])”. The ‘converse relation’ here was that it was harmless to continue to ‘offer this thing belonging to Caesar to Caesar and (distinctly) the things of God to God’ (Matt 22:21).

Also related to this, in terms of the poll-tax, (which I had mistakenly conflated in my previous statements in this thread) the remote relation is that the Jewish Zealot movement, which as Josephus states, pointedly led to this militaristic confrontation with the Romans, origniated from the time when some Jews, later called Zealots, decided not to pay the poll(= census)-tax (cf. Acts 5:37 & Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1.1[#4-#9]; 18:2.6[#23-#25]; 20:5.2 [#102]; War, 2:8.1 [#118]; 2:17.8 [#433-#440]).

EGW started out by saying that all that man needs to know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son, and had she only written that, one might have been possible to misunderstand what she wrote along the lines you are suggesting, but she clarified her thought, by adding "or can know," making it clear that she was not limiting her thought merely to what needs to be known.



No, this wouldn't make sense given the logical point being made. "Elsewhere" in context must refer to Christ's earthly mission.



No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?



Here's our conversation:



You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?



This doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, "I'm glad we agree that chocolate bananas and yellow cars aren't the same thing."



Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh. Somehow you've construed this to mean:



Just to be clear, here's what she said word for word:



Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."

God presents Himself as doing that which He directly allows, so seeing Him as doing so is OK. It should be clear that He's not actually doing these things, however.



Sure they do. The Scripture says that "God killed Saul," although he took his own life. Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem:



This is exactly the point I've been making. Indeed, this is where I got the idea from.



Ok, if you disagree with Ellen White, that's your prerogative.



From the Spirit of Prophecy, I used, not just any example, but the example of which there is the most detail. She makes the same applications to the French Revolution. I could present some of her statements regarding this event as well.



If we're dealing with a subject, and an author devotes many pages to the subject, and the example the author gives is the one of which (s)he supplies the most detail, that's perfectly proper.



The foundation of the view is Jesus Christ. The purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. He is the rock upon which high rise buildings may be safely built.



You rejected what the SOP said, so you *did* see the SOP basis for what I was saying. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to reject it.



First of all, my view doesn't do this. This is a misunderstanding on your part. You could make clear that your understanding is that my view would have the Godhead be such and such, and that would be better (less disrespectful), but, in any context, IMO it's not good to refer to God as you did.

Also, you claim:



Your statement here is both naive and ridiculous. If I say to you that your view of the Godhead (put in something disrespectful here, that ridicules your position, and says something unkind about God), your reaction would simply be to become upset. It wouldn't cause you in any way to want you to change your view.

Surely you can see this.

Name-calling and insults just provokes the party you are insulting to want to do the same thing to you.



Again, I repeat, I am responding to what *you write*. If you wish to partake of something substantive, than write something substantive! If you choose to focus on the peripheral, and I respond to that, don't blame me for dealing with the peripheral. Write something that's not peripheral, but substantive, so that when I respond to that, I'm also dealing with something substantive.



No, this doesn't logically follow. You should be able to see that. If you don't, I'll point out why.



No, this isn't the case. There are different issues being discussed here.

The context of my first making the comment that sin and death are organically related, as I recall, was in reference to the Tree of Life discussion. I asserted that man dies (the second death) because of sin, and you said it's because he is denied access to the Tree of Life.

The other discussion, in regards to God's use of violence, I have been meeting with arguments in regards to God's character, not that sin and death are organically related. I've been consistent in how I've been dealing with these themes.



That doesn't mean others don't. In particular, I do, and I have been consistently dealing with these subjects accordingly.



I'm very sorry you see God in this way.

The following is from DA 764:



This says over and over again that it is NOT God who is causing these things to occur. For example:



How could it be more clearly stated that this is an action on the part of the wicked?

Again:



This is clearly not God acting supernaturally "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings."

That you perceive of God as "also" 'acting supernaturally' "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings," is distressing. Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the Father. He said, 'When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.' Do you perceive Jesus Christ as 'acting supernaturally to cause' (whatever) "involved full and prolonged sufferings'?

There was an incident where Jesus Christ was urged to destroy His enemies by calling down fire from heaven to destroy them. He responded to those so urging Him that they knew not of what spirit they were. He explained that He came not to destroy, but to save.

This is the wonderful character of God! It's not a way that God sometimes is, but other times acting supernaturally to impose full and prolonged suffering. No, no! God is not cruel in any way, ever. Not even at the judgment.



God doesn't impose full and prolonged suffering upon the wicked, but their own actions cause their suffering. They form characters which cause them to suffer simply by having anything at all to do with God. He doesn't have to do anything to make them suffer. They suffer because of what they have done.

Note:



What causes them suffering? Purity, holiness, and peace! That should make it clear that the problem is sin. How could purity, holiness and peace be "torture" to a person who wasn't wrecked by sin?

This is a run-on sentence. It should be obvious in writing such a sentence that this is happening. An inner voice should go off, saying, "I need to stop and start a new sentence!"



It's not a side show issue. Writing as you do makes it very difficult to understand what you're saying, so much so that some, for this very reason alone, choose not to interact with you.



This has something to do with run on sentences?



No, it doesn't. It has to do with how you think. You write the way you think, and the way you think is unclear, so this comes across in your writing.



It's not just cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup, but the inside. It's making what's in the cup palatable. Just look at the sentence I'm responding to, for example. It's over 50 words long.

If you get very few requests, it's because the audience is very small.



I'll agree that at times kland can be somewhat difficult to understand, but not in any way comparable to you. kland's "problem," if anything, is that he's too terse. But that's an easy problem to deal with, as one can just ask him to explain in more detail. You're extremely detailed, but unclear at the same time. There are many words, but little understandable content. And when people make suggestions to you (similar to a request to kland to explain in more detail), rather than complying (as kland would), you refuse.

What? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps shorter sentences would help.



You're not saying anything helpful here.



I have no idea what you're referring here. Quoting something would help.



Maybe he didn't understand what you were saying. It's not easy.



If you're intent on seeing God as acting violently, it's certainly possible to subject that point of view on any incident in Scripture. Indeed, you've done so on a number of occasions.

We're on opposite ends of the spectrum here. I'm intent on seeing God not acting violently, and my reason for so doing is the revelation of Jesus Christ. I see, revealed in Christ, a certain picture of God. Given this picture, I see that certain statements, if understood a certain way, do not fit. So I look for another way to understand the statements, which harmonizes with the picture of God that Jesus Christ revealed.

I expect this is the same for kland as well.

Many others have seen the same thing; that Jesus Christ is *the* revelation of God, the key to understanding God.

Now why you take the other perspective, wanting to see God as acting directly to do something violent (like making serpents feel threatened so that they will attack) is a bit puzzling. This would seem to be as diametrically opposed to what Christ revealed as possible.

We have, on the one hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire on the part of some to understand this statement in a way that would harmonize with Jesus Christ's revelation of God.
3.An actual statement from an inspired writer that the serpents were there the whole time, that God did not sent them, but withdrew His protection from the Israelites.

On the other hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire to see God as wanting to cause suffering on the Israelites.
3.A questioning of an inspired statement because it does agree with 2.



Which post? Where in the post? Why not just quote the comment?



This sentence doesn't make sense. "that they being to be paramount" doesn't make any sense.



I would be very pleased if you wrote something substantive.

----
“Save Trees”???? Don’t buy printed Bible to “save trees” here and/or have the ones you have recycled, or sent to a poor country since you have (presumably) ready access to at least the Bible on the Internet!! I am not preventing you from looking up my references on a Bible software or the internet!?! Instead of quibbling for spurious rationales here, do yourself a favor and jsut drop that futile attempt for an issue here.

And don`t mistake me for a tree-hugger, I am to save lives and not firstly trees. As an easily naturally renewable resource, trees are not in daner of extinction. If you all would use this falsely supposed ‘saved, cumulative time’ to work to save the lives of aborted infants, as the NJK Project plans, I would consider your proposition as collectively beneficial. Just taking the time to respond to couple of supposed supporting examples to your view, which actually would not even affect the majority of opposite examples, as proper exegetical methods require, it increasingly being deemed as not worthwhile and time wasting by me. Perhaps it will help other people than you to see that actually already black-on-white clear Biblical light on this issue.

(And my NJK Project plan to ‘be more efficient in regards to publishing’ is to provide an ebook/“i-Pad”-type device to NJK Citizens (see here) and in the NJK Economy, they won’t cost, or “need to cost” $500+).
----



That is what the Hebrew Grammatical identification states and, more precisely here, what the Syntax intends to convey. For (presumably) reasons/preferences of fluency these notions are not woodenly expresses in mainstream Bible versions. People complained about the begats in the KJV, well they would complain about all of the e.g.,: “caused to” (Hiphil) and “made to” (Piel) in these verbs were rendered as they were literally meant to. The scholarship attempt to try to express this nuance by using different words in English actually has done injury to this Hebrew Language element as it can be easily seen by the fact that the Hebrew tenses, depending on the context in which they are found, actually confusedly need to use those intended distinct English words.

(Though I am fluent in French and conversant/functional in Spanish, I think we could stick to the major English version, (the NIV, RSV/NRSV, JB/NJB should also be consulted cited, though I do not see version comparison as being determinative since the underlying syntax is not always properly rendered.)

The NJB (New Jerusalem Bible (hint hint) accurately has: “He had not consulted Yahweh, who therefore caused his death”

Indeed OT Hebrew Textbooks (as well as NT Greek ones) usually makes numerous Scriptural citations where they rendered texts in ways that are not found in any Bible version. (E.g, Waltke and O’Connor’s work (IBHS) has over 4100 Scriptural references, most of these being of this unique and more precise rendition kind.



What’s your page number for the IBHS citation here??



(Just a note, I personally trust the quite comprehensive and more recent work of IBHS over other printed grammars, and especially over internet sources.)

These are indeed rightly emphasizing the causative notion contained in the Hiphil. (Perhaps you do not fully understand the grammatical/syntactical implications here.) As further explained in IBHS, (which can be accessed in Google Books) this “causation” is quite distinctly in action than the Piel or the Qal, among others tenses. Indeed as expressed in IBHS, 355:



Piel - patiency nuance = “The semantic role of an entity that is not the agent but is directly involved in or affected by the happening denoted by the verb in the clause”

Hiphil - agency nuance - The semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause. How a result is obtained or an end is achieved

However, more than just the piel is involved when direct action is intended by the subject in regards to the verb “to kill” (#04191). The Hebrew Polel form (derived from the Piel) is used. Indeed with a notion here of pointed aim and/with endeavor, using a “special energy”, it thus speaks of ‘actively and directly putting someone to death’ (Jud 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51; Psa 34:22; 109:16); indeed in relation to Saul himself (2 Sam 1:9, 10, 16), and also when God is to directly do it (Jer 20:17). (cf. GKC (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar) 55c:





The DA account of Christ’s incontrovertible use of physical force to twice clear/cleanse the Temple moreoverly, clearly indicate to me what was really going on here. Christ was indeed righteously indignant. That fact cannot be futilely excised/ignored from the Bible and SOP. The fig tree could be passed off as an acted parable, however the surprised reaction of the disciples shows that this was also not within the normative action/conduct of Christ. However it is the intrinsic part of God’s Ministry of judgement/Wrath and as usually, it is always for a greater good and not out of any baseless/reactionary vindictiveness.



There is nothing “unfortunate” about ‘Righteous Indignation for a greater good’. You are the one who cannot understand this just aspect of God’s Character. I personally thank God for this judicious, even forceful, intervention especially when it so does confront the abuses of people in positions of power/leadership, especially (religious) leadership in His People/Church. (Cf. Rev 6:9, 10) And I aim to be a 100% follower of Christ. It was because it was not Christ’s mandate then to judge Israel, but to first instruct/redress them and complete the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 49, 50) that more of these deserved acts of judgement were not done.

And in regards to Christ’s expressed ‘great wish’ in Luke 12:49, if he indeed had not ‘greatly constrained himself’ but done that act of bringing about Hell Fire on the earth, that would have trumped all of the “meted” actions of judgements by God in the OT put together, including the Flood destruction.



Cite a couple of Examples. I rather see that he spoke veiledly to them from the start (e.g., John 2:19ff & 3:3ff), indeed, as already stated, ‘rousing their hatred’ (DA 167.2) in the first act of His ministry in the Clearing/Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13ff).



Christ made himself meet with this opposition right from the start by himself initiating the confrontation in the Temple. The veiled statements also started right then. Barring an actual substantiation here, your view here would actually be wishful thinking.



The Biblical Truth is that Jesus wanted to judge them from the start. You don’t awake love by doing actions that arouse hatred. Further Biblically speaking that was all in line with his “designs”to bring about deserved judgement on this leaders who should have known and done better, as they were pretentious purporting.

(For some reason you think that just claiming “love” resolves everything. At best this was tough love manifested by Christ, nonetheless “tough love” explanatorily seeks to avoid sustained hatred against the disciplinary actions taken, and perhaps this was only done in the first statements made in John 2:16, yet after his overthrowing acts. Still that initial statement should have been enough to enlighten these “knowledgeable” leaders (cf. The disciples own understanding in John 2:17). I rather see that Christ had love for those who were being swindled, misled and oppressed. From the start, these Jewish leaders collectively had reach the stage of unrevokable judgement. They effectively lost their position to Christ. There only solution was to align themselves with what Christ’s leadership, and they manifestly fully understood this implication, however they basely wanted an ‘external sign’ John 2:18, rather than heed the substantive Biblical truth (John 2:16, 17)



Expressing truth, even if force has to be used is not disrespect. The wayward and unbiblical actions and statements of these did not deserve any respect, lest Christ be thus complicit in their waywardness, or worse, emboldened then through this “respect” in this wrong, unBiblical and vitally dangerous path.



Your underlying points did not hold up to the actual light of God’s word including the SOP. So this conclusion is thus baseless. The fact that Simon, a Pharisee had already manifested interest in Christ and had in thanks for his healing organized this public known feast was reason enough for Christ to be patient with him and his growing faith. That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:



So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action. Thus Christ indeed wanted to save him and excused his wayward thought here, as he similarly repeatedly did for his own disciples. However an outspoken condemnatory denunciation would have brought a corresponding, at the very least, indicative correction. Cf. Matt 16:21-23).



This view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry. In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)



It does when you carefully read it. Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon. Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment. He shouldhave even inward gave deference to Christ’s judgement and wisdom inaccepting this gift of Mary. As EGW says of Simon Character: “he had not accepted Him [Jesus] as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.” So at best he was just as deprived in character as the other Jewish leaders, hence why he could not perceive the Spiritual/Prophetic import of this accepted act by Christ.



Where am I “speculating” here, as implied, or anywhere else for that matter. Do point out a couple of examples, if true! My statements are painstakingly, exegetically derived from the Bible with, when agreeing, the SOP. (I address this volcano notion below).



You need to seek for a natural explanation as to how “sulfur stones” could rain down from heaven. In your view they had to be projected from a volcano to seem like they can from Heaven. I rather see that when the Bible and the SOP clearly say that they Fire was “from Yahweh” and “out of the heaven/sky” this double specification does preclude a “natural” (i.e., already supposed to occur) occurrence here. It indeed does not say: ‘from a volcano nearby’ which indeed had to be very near. I rather see that God caused, i.e., through His working angels, His active agents for most destructions, this fire to fall straight down from Heaven (i.e., beyond our atmosphere) by e.g., gathering the brimstones from the sulfuric volcanic moon of Jupiter.

Your ‘natural volcano supposition’ here has the added problem of timeliness here. Did God first wait for a nearby volcano to be about to erupt before making this trip to Earth for this destruction, (which also has the implied notion that God is subservient to nature to timely effectuate his will).

Also the SOP statements that:

“Here the angels left them, a turned back to Sodom to accomplish their work of destruction*” and “The storm of divine judgment was only waiting that these poor fugitives might make their escape” (PP 160.2) and “Again the solemn command was given to hasten, for the fiery storm would be delayed but little longer” (PP 161.2) all show that God was playing a most active part in this destruction. Even simply no longer controlling a volcano involves an action of God.

*(The manifest needed presence of these angels near the cities to be destroyed may have been scientifically as necessary as a Military’s need at times today of Marines to be on the ground, close that a target, to “paint” it with a laser to accurately guide an incoming missile. Indeed those cities would need more targeted hits than the rest of the plain to physically destroy them.)

Also God’s sparing of Bela/Zoar at Lot’s entreaty (PP 161.1) shows that God could “whimsically” control where the brimstone and fire went.

EGW repeatedly refers to this destruction as a “storm/tempest”. Clearly there was notion/indication in here visionary view here that this was merely a volcanic eruption.

And the actual mathematical science for a volcano to destroy five cities and an entire valley, and not by lava flow, but sulfur stone, most of which are relatively small, is, to my knowledge, naturally not attested or logically feasible.



I base my Biblical conclusion on careful exegesis of the Bible and SOP and not outright, even illogical third-party speculation. Your view needs to preclude that God and/or through His angels, actively does these acts, and that defaulty makes your conclusions foundations shaky, especially when they are not explicitly suggested in either the texts of the Bible or SOP.



Volcanoes are usually in some type of mountainous forms. (Only volcanic fissure vents are flat but when erupting have no explosive activity.) So for it to be covered by the Dead Sea, which is not that deep, especially at its indeed S&G southern end which does not exceed 16 ft (see SDABD 1051) would not cover a volcano. So to prove your theory here you need to pinpoint where that volcano, and or its remains are. (Try Google Earth). And for brimstones to be hurled at a great distance, an quite high volcano dome would be needed to provide the required ground clearance when propelled.

Also this volcanic sulfur stone propelling would oddly have to be onsided instead of concentrically circular, unless that supposed volcano was in the midst of this valley. Then it should not be hard to pinpoint it in even in the 16ft covered depth of the Southern part



The Bible and SOP, and that unlike the Flood account with the mention of “fountains of the deep” make no mention of ‘contributing underground activity’. Only projectiles from the Sky/Heaven are related. So I don’t see this supposition as Biblically viable/valid.



Widely, and contra-Biblically, presumed, at best! I have no need to go outside of Biblical Testimony to have the truth of what happened then. No view of mine is forcing me to ignore the clear Biblical account here. Again, at the very least Bible writers living much closer to these times, and even EGW would have known, been shown, that a volcano and underground eruptions were used for this destruction. Indeed that would have served to prevent an unbeliever later claiming that there was nothing supernatural that occurred in that observable, and widely renowned, valley and cities destruction, as “it was just a volcano that had erupted.



Hope it is more Biblically substantive and exegetically engaging/tenable that these replies!

I could easily debunk all of your arguments in your latest post, including the peripheral one, but I won’t even succinctly begin to do so as this discussion is no longer worthwhile for me, especially in having to restate and/or having to unspin and remake clear what you have spinned and obfuscatedly made unclear in order to have a peg upon which to hang your objecting points. A careful and logical reading of what I had said should sustain my points. The lack of actually proper exegesis, which also includes EGW’s subordination to the Bible, also makes this discussion more complicated than it needs to be.

My only option here is to let it play out and in the end we will see who had the Biblical view. And I judiciously choose to exercise it now. I’ll have to answer for this wasting of time. So long Tom, at least, for this discussion.

(Still “can’t” find time to read my blog post on the fundamental “War in Heaven” exposition. Seems like an ostrich move to me so that you can “oblivious” (actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)

Hell Doctrine Riddle: How does a person live for more than a couple minutes, indeed days, if not “ages”, in a Lake of Fire. By a Just, “full life-sustaining” Act of God (and not by their sinfulness)!!

Oh yeah... for the Second death- organic sin issue, see your response in #13081, which was addressing my initial post in this thread at #130766. I only later made a mention of the Tree of Life in #130887.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.

Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?

You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly (as if I am so defeated by you that I need to lie to you, LOL) truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’. Hence my: “If you’re familiar...” (or it should have been: ‘If you were familiar...’). And if making this request so bothers you, then don’t ask it again. Like I said, it won’t change anything. (And... and I can’t believe I am even remotely honoring this ignorant statement of yours, a “course in copy/pasting” won’t help. In fact the more formal way of copying a pasting in Bibleworkis more time consuming, and is actually better for the copying of large amounts of varying texts and/or from various Bible versions.)

By the way, I actually don’t see that ‘you had made a good point.’ Most of them are irrational and illogical to me, particular as they are usually hypothetical and that based on false realities. So that assumption of yours here is only your personal esteem of your statements.