I just don't see how what you're suggesting makes any sense in the light of this paragraph. Could you explain that please? How are the principles of love, mercy and kindness manifested by burning a person alive, supernaturally keeping them alive so they can suffer more, until the last particle is consumed by literal fire?

As you will notice, I have not argued that "in the case of Apocalyptic language - we can not figure out what the symbols mean". I am sure we both agree there. So probably not a real Dragon nor a real chain in Rev 20 for example.

but the symbols there are a good example of the kind of language we do not see in GC 673, EW294. Which was the contrast point I was trying to make.

1. I don't know of any Chrisian group teaching that Rev 20:1 is speaking of a real dragon.

2. I can't imagine that such an unknown Christian group thinking that an actual dragon is being chained in Rev 20 -- would be larger than the 15 million SDAs that take EW 294 and GC673 as being actually true as written and not as apocalyptic symbols.

T:I've asked you several times to explain how EW 294 would work if it were literal, but you seem unable to do that. If it's literal, you should be able to easily explain what's happening. Please explain how Bob, would you please explain how the following is literal.

B:The literary style of writing that we see in EW294 and GC673 is not apocalyptic symbols.

NOR have I ever seen the White Estate claiming that it was merely symbols using exaggerated hyperbole.

You are welcome to find such a quote from them -- I would love to see it.

• Question: How is this possible?
• One would logically conclude that God would have to
intervene and prevent physical laws from doing their
natural work. With that understanding, the system then
becomes arbitrary, not to mention SATANIC.

I've asked you several times to explain how EW 294 would work if it were literal, but you seem unable to do that. If it's literal, you should be able to easily explain what's happening. Please explain how Bob, would you please explain how the following is literal.

When convicted of their falsehood, their [A&S] punishment was instant death. {CC 330.3} For presuming to touch the symbol of God's presence, he [Uzzah] was smitten with instant death. {MH 436.1} If any ventured so much as to touch it [Sinai] , the penalty was instant death. {PP 304.1}

Death is the final punishment of all who reject light, and continue in transgression. {4aSG 14.2} Any violation of it is an act of transgression against God, and will be visited with the penalty of the divine law. To all the inhabitants of the world who make void the law of Jehovah, and continue to live in transgression, death must surely come. {6BC 1116.3}The penalty for the least transgression of that law is death, and but for Christ, the sinner's Advocate, it would be summarily visited on every offender. {TDG 246.1}

He thought that the prisoners had escaped, and that he must be punished with death. But as he was about to kill himself, Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, "Do thyself no harm: for we are all here." {EW 204.2} Those who do not choose to accept of the salvation so dearly purchased, must be punished. {EW 221.1} Manstealing, deliberate murder, and rebellion against parental authority were to be punished with death. {PP 310.2} Whoever neglected to comply with the directions given was punished with death. {PP 375.4}

He was taken in the act and brought before Moses. It had already been declared that Sabbathbreaking should be punished with death, but it had not yet been revealed how the penalty was to be inflicted. The case was brought by Moses before the Lord, and the direction was given, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." Numbers 15:35. The sins of blasphemy and willful Sabbathbreaking received the same punishment, being equally an expression of contempt for the authority of God. {PP 409.1}

In our day there are many who reject the creation Sabbath as a Jewish institution and urge that if it is to be kept, the penalty of death must be inflicted for its violation; but we see that blasphemy received the same punishment as did Sabbathbreaking. Shall we therefore conclude that the third commandment also is to be set aside as applicable only to the Jews? Yet the argument drawn from the death penalty applies to the third, the fifth, and indeed to nearly all the ten precepts, equally with the fourth. Though God may not now punish the transgression of His law with temporal penalties, yet His word declares that the wages of sin is death; and in the final execution of the judgment it will be found that death is the portion of those who violate His sacred precepts. {PP 409.2}

Had Eli dealt justly with his wicked sons, they would have been rejected from the priestly office and punished with death. {PP 577.1} The irreverent daring of the people at Beth-shemesh was speedily punished. Many were smitten with sudden death. {PP 589.2} God gave positive evidence that He rules in the heavens, and rebellion was punished with death. {1BC 1113.7} The fearful and unbelieving, who are punished with the second death, are of that class who are ashamed of Christ in this world. {2T 630.1}

What did God command Moses to do with those who were guilty of adultery? They should be stoned to death. Does the punishment end there? No, they are to die the second death. The stoning system has been done away, but the penalty for transgressing God's law is not done away. If the transgressor does not heartily repent, he will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. {TSB 131.3}

And I keep saying that EW294 and GC673 are not "my suggestions" nor my authorship nor "my thinking". Though you keep repositioning it that way.

I also point out that we have no literary evidence AND no indication from the White Estate that these specific pages are using exaggerated hyperbole or dark apocalyptic symbols.

Which means that you have a non-starter for a question assuming things not in evidence.

And I keep saying that EW294 and GC673 are not "my suggestions" nor my authorship nor "my thinking". Though you keep repositioning it that way.

These are visions. Visions must be interpreted. I disagree with your interpretation of the visions. In EW 294, you mistakenly understand what is obviously symbolic as literal. I don't know anyone who takes this literally, besides you (speaking specifically of the portion which speaks of their being suffering until every particle is consumed, and that their "worm of life" continues until every particle is consumed.

your view ignores the text saying that rocks are "on fire" with the same fire as is buring the wicked.

your view ignores the text saying that some of the wicked burn for many days while others do not.

your view ignores the text talking about FULL "suffering" that continues as long as any part of that person remains.

your view ignores the text saying that this is "punishment" and that it is meeted out "according to works" done in the body - and is a "penalty" being paid that is defined by the Law of God.

The "inconvient details" GC 673 and EW 294 are myriad when it comes to your view.

And as already stated - we have NO statement AT ALL that EW 294 or GC 673 is using dark speech (apocalyptic symbols).

-- no not from the White Estate nor is there any formal Adventist statement arguing that point.

You simply make it up because your view is so explicitly contradicted by the details that we find "in the text" in the case of GC 673 and EW 294.

What part of this is supposed to be "surprising" or the least bit hidden for the reader?

These are visions. Visions must be interpreted.

Regarding GC 673, as long as there as this passage has existed there has been debate as to its meaning.

There was a fellow here named Kevin who used to post regarding the history involved here. It's too bad he's not around right now, as it's quite interesting. I don't recall the details, but I know he's done a study showing that from the earliest times there was a debate within Adventism as to whether the fire was literal or symbolic.

Quote:
your view ignores the text saying that rocks are "on fire" with the same fire as is buring the wicked.

I believe the wicked and rocks are burned by the same fire, when the earth is purified.

Quote:
your view ignores the text saying that some of the wicked burn for many days while others do not.

She doesn't say some burn for many days while others do not. She says some suffer for many hours, some for many days. I agree with what she said.

Quote:
The "inconvient details" GC 673 and EW 294 are myriad when it comes to your view.

Not at all! These details fit into a consistent picture, when combined with other texts which deal with the same subject. I've developed such a view (i.e., one which encompasses all the texts I'm aware of). It looks like you simply dismiss any texts which disagree with the interpretation you give to GC 673. For example, when I ask how your interpretation fits with the principles of love, mercy and kindness, you say Jesus will explain this in heaven, the implication being, you have no idea. So even you don't see your interpretation as being consistent with the principles of love, mercy and kindness.