I was thinking of Satan and his agents as Satan and his angelic confederates. I suppose "agents" could refer to people as well. But you don't believe the wicked kill each other, right? You think their killed by a carefully controlled fire.



By the end of time, do you mean before Christ's second coming? Or during the judgment? If you mean before Christ's second coming, I think they will kill each other, and what happened in Jerusalem does apply.

Regarding ashes, Malachi 4 would be the classic one:

The written text itself is corrupt in that case. There is no "supernatural being" marrying anyone in Genesis 6. Nor does the underlying text even say such a thing.

A good example where the translator from language-A to language-B ALSO became the liberal "paraphraser" and then you offer that as if it was actually in the underlying text.

But in the case of GC 672-673 and EW294 the "underlying text" happens to be written in "english".

in Christ,

Bob

Just want to make sure I understand you correctly. It seems like with a sweep of the hand, you have determined that the underlying text doesn't agree with the mis-interpretation.

Also, you seem to imply that whenever there is an interpretation of language-A to language-B, there is a possibility for error. Would this mean all versions could be wrong? Would you be saying we cannot accept English Bible version texts as they read? When does one decide what the "underlying text" really means? Would that be when it agrees with one's own views?

Another line of thought is while the "underlying text" of White says one thing which you think it to mean, and there is no language translation barrier, what about the "underlying thought"? I believe you were one who made use of the underlying thought in regards to around GC page 35.

I might have missed out on something here. I thought the wicked would be burned with fire. Something like self-combustion. Not that God burns them, but they burn as a result of God withdrawing and leaving them to themselves and the existing conditions. Much like the flood.

I don't think so. I think the fire which causes them pain is agape, not literal fire. The agony comes as the look of God reveals their life story. They see what they've done, where they rejected God, the true meaning of their sin, and this is what causes their suffering.

There's no fire?

No fire!?! Gotta be a fire.

But I always expected a fire. Not a vengeful fire, but a nice fire. A fire to purify. One that will consume those sinners. But what about the coal in the earth reserved for the last days?

No fire?

But I want a fire. A nice fire.

It has bothered me when you read verses about burn or consume from within their midst as to how that could be literal. Then there's verses about "as a consuming fire", meaning not really, but as one. Whether torturing them forever or just burning them at the stake, I guess does seem like a non-loving thing to do. If it is an internal conflict, I guess that would fit in better with being consumed to the last particle and coincide with what Jesus experienced at the cross better.

So, the evil die without a literal fire but there is a fire that consumes and renews the earth, right?

Easy to affirm when there are two texts not one and when they are in different languages not one and when the second text is clearly inserting terms to fit the bias of the interpreter as we see with the "no fire in GC 672-673" and "no fire in EW 294" spin doctoring.




Hopefully this is merely stating the obvious.



Hint: Compare the NASB to the Living Bible or the Clear Word.

Again - the point I am making is merely the obvious between direct translation vs paraphrasing in bias in a form that is classic eisegesis.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, and there are a couple of other points as well. One is the punishment is proportional to the sin committed. I don't see how that could work with a literal fire, without God acting very uncharacteristically. Another point is that DA 764 tells us that had God *left* Satan and his followers to reap the full results of sin, they would have perished, but the angels would not have understood that this was the inevitable result of sin. If Satan died because he was burned by a literal fire, this wouldn't make any sense. Also there's a point that you alluded to, which is that it is the death of the cross which enables us to understand the death of the wicked. It's hard to see how this would be the case if they die by literal fire.



That's what I think. And, of course, this fire will consume the wicked as well.

I was re-reading your elusive answer to my question as to whether the swords are literal in the EW quote I presented, to see if I could make any sense of it, as you seem completely unwilling to answer it in a straight-forward way (i.e. yes, you believe the swords are literal, or no, you don't, with some sort of explanation), and by inference it appears that perhaps your view is that the swords were literal as of the time this was written. Is that correct?