you ever wonder about that mist coming up from the ground that watered the earth? did the earth have like pores or something?

was it Gods controlled "watering system" like underground sprinklers?

That's an interesting question. Over 10 years ago I saw a video made from a scientist/creationist who was presenting 7 day creation. He said that today they can compress water as into a form as hard as steel.



He used this fact to say that the firmament/expanse of day 2 of creation was a shield of compressed water as hard as steel that surrounded the earth like a bubble, that had many function like maintaining the temperature on earth even, filtering unwanted rays, bringing up dew from the ground as you see inside a greenhouse, etc...


Since this subject is about "Does God Punish?". Later on he explains that the water from the flood came from this shield. It was broken by a force that decompressed that water and it fell on the earth as rain. Heavy rain that is. He also elaborated on how the shield was broken, it came from two factors :
#1 The mind of practically all human was continously in disharmony(sin) with the heavenly family. The unification of earths sinful mind created a type of wavelenght that crashed(like thunderstorm (+) with (-)) with the wavelenght of the heavenly wavelenght. (please excuse my poor explaination here, but it's been a long time I saw this video)
#2. He brought out a text which I thought was in Peter, but can't seem to find it. Something to do with the springs under the foundation of the earth broke? I don't remember this very well, but remember the picture which he showed a type of geyser of water that hit the compressed shield of water.

#1 and #2 combined broke the sheild and the water fell on the earth.

I don't want to get into proving the validity of his presentation, but it gave me a strong impression that brings my #5 point:

#5. there's lots of things in nature and it's laws governing this world and the consequencial effect of sin, is beyond our knowledge today. EGW says, God never brakes a law of nature, but he use them for the purpose of eternity.



Tom, you mentioned that you disagree partially with what I said in #2. God's omniscient. I would like to hear it and if there's no post started on this subject, some time in the futur, I would like to discuss about it. But right now, I have enough on my plate.

thats interesting because we seem to have a contradiction in these two verses.

Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

Ez 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

is it one or the other, or does one explain the other?

I think if we think of these things as literal fire, yes, there would be a contradiction. However, if we understand that these visions may involve symbolism, and the prophets simply recorded what they saw, there need not be any contradiction.

Ok. There are some threads on this subject here. Maybe someone will resurrect one. In the meantime, take a look at the last paragraph or two of "The Desire of Ages" page 49 when you have time, and we can use that as a starting off point whenever you'd like to discuss this.

God spelled it out a long time before Samuel. Having a king would have been a blessing if he had followed in the footsteps of Moses. Here's what He instructed Moses about it:

Deuteronomy
17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:
17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left: to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

I'm asking you. I've made my position clear. My answer is, No, to the question - "Based on the passages you posted, can we deduce that God must have commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires?"


It depends on how you answer the question above. From my perspective there was nothing perverted about the thinking or the desires of the Jews in these two specific cases (e.g. the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer). They came to Moses because they were not sure what to do? Unlike the Jews who brought the woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, it was not in their mind or heart to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer.


In essence He spelled out more clearly all ten commandments in the Law of Moses. Here's how Ellen put it:

But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded. Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}

Ellen wrote:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. These manifestations bear the special marks of God's power, and are designed to cause the people of the earth to tremble before him, and to silence those, who like Pharaoh would proudly say, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?" {3SG 80} End Quote.

Tom, I have detailed questions based on this passage.


Tom, thank you for the partial answer to my questions, however, in overlooking the rest of them you failed to address the aspects most important to me. Had you addressed all of my questions you would have avoided this problem.

In response to the first of my four detailed questions, you wrote, “We need God's protection for many reasons.” While I agree with this insight, it has nothing to do with the questions I asked. Please go back over the questions and them answer them in detail so I can ponder your answers. Thank you.

In response to the next of my four detailed questions, you wrote, “Regarding the question if Satan can do the things mentioned in 3SG 80, sure, he could in general, which I'm sure you know.” Are saying here that you agree with how I answered the questions on your behalf, and that you agree with the comment I made afterward?

You also wrote, “I don't know what you're asking this, since in the context of 3SG 80, he didn't.” I made it ridiculously clear that “I understand you were offended when I said you apply these observations to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. But now I’m asking something totally different.”

Above I asked, “I have another question in relation to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. Do you think Ellen mentioned anything or described any disasters in that quote which you believe Satan caused rather than God?” Are you saying, No?


I wasn’t asking you to post quotes which depict Jesus demonstrating “every possible permutation of protection withdrawn” that happened in the OT. I’m simply asking for a single instance of it. You keep insisting that what happened in 70 AD is an example of Jesus withdrawing His protection while He was here in the flesh. But I keep insisting it didn’t happen while He was here in the flesh. I assume we both agree Jesus returned to heaven in 31 AD. Declaring, “Your house is left unto desolate” in no way demonstrates Jesus withdrawing His protection and “bad things happening”, as you put it. Don’t you think it is time you admit that Jesus did not demonstrate this aspect of God’s character and kingdom while He was here in the flesh?


You wrote, “So to say that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God is sufficient.” Unless, of course, you are not correctly defining the phrase “can know”.


You wrote, “Otherwise Christ's revelation would not be sufficient, and she would have been honor bound to explain that.” I find this answer interesting in light of your argument elsewhere, namely, that absence of something is not an argument for or against it. You apply this to the “God offered to pardon Lucifer” discussion.

At any rate, no, she is not “honor bound” to say what you said in the immediate context of her statement. As you like to say, we must gather up everything she wrote about it and then formulate a conclusion. This is exactly what I did above. Besides, here statement as it appears in 8T 216 says exactly what I concluded above if we define “can know” in the way I do.

We also have Jesus’ own testimony about it. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."

Jesus is saying He hadn't revealed everything to them. There was more He wanted to tell them. But it would have to wait until later, at which time He would reveal it to them through the Holy Spirit. We can deduce what Jesus was unable to reveal to them during His time here by comparing what we learn about God in the OT with what we learn about throughout the rest of the NT and the SOP.

So far in my studies, it is evident to me that Jesus did not reveal the wrath of God while He was here. He never withdrew His protection and allowed sinners to suffer and die. Nor did He ever command people to kill sinners. Of course, there are other things, too.

"To understand the truth in other cases" you believe we must insert details that do not exist in the text. God warned us against doing this very thing. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."


I believe God ordered Moses to execute them because they were guilty of sinning willfully, presumptuously. Presumptuousness is incurable. It must be avoided at all cost. Capital punishment serves as a necessary deterrent. "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." But capital punishment also serves another purpose. It testifies that at the end of time God will execute justice and judgment upon sinners. "While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law."

You wrote, "If their thinking had been correct, there would have been no necessity to deal with Sabbath-breakers in this way. It was because of the Israelite's ignorance that these draconian measures came up." You are implying God caved in to their erroneous ideas and ordered them to execute capital punishment contrary to His will. But the evidence suggests otherwise. They came to Moses seeking the truth. They genuinely wanted to know what would be the right and righteous thing to do. What God told them to do was the truth as it is in Jesus. "The Lord is coming to execute judgment upon all who obey not the gospel."

You asked, What should we do nowadays with Sabbath-breakers? Yes, of course, things are different since we are no longer under a theocracy. This matters very much. Most of what was required under the OC ended at the cross. I believe executing capital punishment was one of them. Actually, the Jews lost this right under Roman rule.

In the place of capital punishment, Jesus gave the church the authority to disfellowship sinners, which is essentially a death sentence. "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You wrote, "In Jesus' time Israel was still a theocracy, and Jesus steadfastly refused any sort of violence of this sort." Not because capital punishment when administered under a theocracy is evil or violent, but because the Jewish leaders were deserving of capital punishment themselves. None of them were "without sin", therefore, not one of them was qualified to cast the first stone.

Of course, there was also the matter of Roman law which did not allow Jews to execute capital punishment. Jesus complied with Roman law. Not to comply would have constituted a sin and Satan would have won the GC. "Should He acquit the woman, He might be charged with despising the law of Moses. Should He declare her worthy of death, He could be accused to the Romans as one who was assuming authority that belonged only to them." {DA 460.5}

PS - Tom, I still don't know why you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. I can guess why, but you hate it when I guess. So just tell me plainly. Please.