I agree. It should be clear to see that the second death does not involve literal fire. However, Christ felt "fire," as evidenced by His saying, "My heart melts like wax."

The best way of describing the suffering caused by the second death is as the burning of fire. The only way of conveying what happens is in terms of something we understand, since we have no way of relating to things we've not experienced or have no familiarity with. So God communicates with us in common language, in terms of fire, which we do understand.

Here's another example:



Isn't Ezekiel here explaining what he saw as well as he can, in terms of things with which we are familiar? Why wouldn't God do the same thing in vision? That is, give images to represent things for which we have no context in the form of things for which we do have a context.

Bob, is this literal?

I didn't say you did. I was saying no one else can change the fact when you haven't even established it.


The earth orbits the sun now. Do you not think it orbited the sun after creation? What was it orbiting before creation?


You missed my point of asking about the Hebrew.


Again, you missed the point of different readings of Hebrew. I assume so since you did not address my question of whether you objected to a different reading. By any chance are you one who insists on KJV?


Point not seen. The only point I see is a dogmatic holding to a favorite version or belief and the presupposed content is not up for question.


Hmmm.....

1. "Those who had been most guilty in their murmurings were slain as soon as they tasted the meat for which they had lusted." What kind of meat slays sinners as soon as they taste it? You seem to be saying it was the meat, not God, that slayed them. Was the quail infected with coturnism? If so, why did God send them a food source sure to kill them? You say God gave them what they wanted. Are you so sure they wanted toxic meat?


2. "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty." The punishment inflicted on the Jews involved humans killing humans. Are you suggesting God will punish the wicked at the end of time by permitting them to kill each other? Don't you believe sin is what will kill sinners at the end of time?

Actually, was it Tom or Ellen White:
"He let them suffer the results of gratifying their lustful appetites"
"If they had submitted to have the Lord select their food for them, and had been thankful and satisfied for food which they could eat freely of without injury"

I'm sure you're going to say I left off the punishing part. But that is the part under question. What do you think Ellen White is trying to get across from the above, "without injury"? If God was going to strike them down, why didn't He just strike them down instead of going through the charade of giving them meat as they desired?


If not?

What if it was for some other reason? For that matter, why did God put the tree in the midst of the Garden if it was sure to kill Adam and Eve? Was it for some other reason?

God said if they followed Him, they wouldn't have the diseases of the Egyptians. God supplied the food that was best for them. They wanted to eat like the Egyptians. So, either God could have said, no you have no choice in the matter, you're going to follow me whether you like it or not. Or, He could let them have their way. Which way do you suggest He should have done?

He let them have their way. They got to eat like the Egyptians. They therefore got the diseases of the Egyptians. Did they learn anything from the experience? They wanted meat with their eyes wide opened.

If it was only God directly killing them, why would He give what wasn't right only to slaughter them? Are you suggesting that He was acting like a parent who told their kid they couldn't have any cookies before dinner, then held the cookie jar in front of them and say, come on, don't you want a cookie. The kid reaches in and takes a cookie, then the parent says, I told you no cookies before dinner and then proceeds to belt the daylights out of them?

What kind of meat slays sinners with a plague as soon as they taste it? Was there something wrong with the quails? Were they toxic or poisonous? It was, after all, God who sent the quail to them. Why couldn't they eat it "without injury"? Did it kill everyone who ate it? Indeed, why didn't God simply allow them to die without having to eat the quail He sent them? The first born of Egypt were slain without eating anything. Why didn't God simply punish them that way?


Are you suggesting the fruit of the forbidden tree was toxic or poisonous?

Are you suggesting eating quails like Egyptians results in sudden death? Is there any record of Egyptians dying suddenly because they ate quail meat? Later on, when the Jews occupied the Promised Land, when the manna ceased and they freely ate of quail and other meats like Egyptians, did they die?

I don't understand your cookie spanking analogy. How does it relate to God sending the Jews toxic quails in response to their unholy desire to eat quail meat? why didn't He send them healthy quails to eat?

You seem to be assuming they should die, by some means, for wanting meat.

Why?

Now - see we do agree on something.

Do we also agree that Christ was Crucified on the cross and NOT burned in the lake of fire... and that those in the lake of fire are NOT crucified on the cross by Romans and then exposed to the supernatural agony of the weight of suffering and torment owed by ALL sinners for ALL of time?



Ooops -- I think you missed a couple of details as listed above - when equating what Christ suffered to a single person being "tormented in fire and brimstone" as the Bible says - in the Lake of Fire.

Notice that the glory of God is not burning or tormenting the wicked in Rev 20 as they all see Him high and lifted up on His throne and judging the secrets of all mankind?

Nor is the glory of God shining on Jesus at the cross and causing Him to suffer by the very presence of God.

in Christ,

Bob

Accepting what the Bible says - is already established fact. The onus to prove that the Bible is not correct is on those who make the speculation.

For example - the Bible says "For in Six days the Lord Created the heavens and the Earth" - someone may well come along and say "oh no He did not" -- but that is not a "kind of proof" that He did not - such that those who argue in favor of the 7 day Creation week must now "show a video of Creation week" or be accepted as proven wrong.





Interesting question - and a good example of a point not raised in the text. Simply asking a zillion questions not raised in the text itself is not a "kind of proof" that the text is incorrect.

1. You argue from the void of what you don't know. Surely mankind knew "even less" at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis - which does not make the book "even less true" then than now.

2. There are as we know "wandering planets" - there is no need to suppose that earth was not orbiting the center of the Galaxy as man of these others do. But even that - is merely "guessing" and is not a point raised in the text. Again - it proves nothing.






Feel free to show how it still applies.







Interesting rabbit trail. My point is that you have not given a "whole argument" for taking the text to some other point - rather you make speculative suggestions and then do not show that they hold up to close review. The problem with that is - where COULDn't one try to argue a "speculative suggestion" against what the text says?

Speculation alone is not proof of something other than the point that rabbit trails are always available for deviating from the text. But what is NOT shown here is that they are supportable to the same level that the text itself is supportable.

Which is my point.

in Christ,

Bob

It is a path that has unlimitted rabbit trails and no solutions.





Then we differ on two points.

You are missing the one where I keep showing that the alternative-speculation approach has not been shown to "stand" under close review the way the "take the text as it reads" solution holds up. Speculation alone is not proof of something other than "the ability to speculate".

in Christ,

Bob

"as powerless as straw" is an obvious literary simile -- classic in it's use.

Did you intend to show at "the detail level" in GC 673 and EW 294 each case of obvious literary simile being employed?

I look forward to the exercise.

in Christ,

Bob