I think He could manifest His presence in that way if He so chose. I don't think your question makes sense ontologically. God existed before there was even matter. The concept of His glowing wouldn't have even made sense before He created matter.



I don't remember the question. No, I don't think it was like Raiders of the Lost Ark.



Glad to hear that. Thinking of the sin problem in these terms I think helps very much to understand the atonement, the judgment, the Great Controversy, and what God is attempting to do.



This isn't what he said. He said, "I truly am surprised you think the fire in Sodom was real fire." Why would you think I wouldn't have thought that real fire was involved?



If "oil or coal or something naturally occurring in the area burst into flames" then that would have resulted in real fire, right?

They're not red herrings. It's the same principle involved.



Here's the definition of "light":



When you say God is literally light, do you have definition 1a in mind? That's what I would think of by the word "literal." I would disagree with this idea. However, other definitions listed here make sense to me.



God existed before fire existed. I don't think what you're suggesting makes sense.



I'm glad you recognize it was literal fire which burned Sodom and Gomorrah, as opposed to some supernatural fire. I think you've misunderstood the dynamics involved in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Hosea, God says, "How can I give you up" in reference to cities in the plain which burned. The same dynamic was at work in Sodom and Gomorrah as in the destruction of Jerusalem.



I agree. The same principles will be at work in hell as were at work in Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Understanding that sin is deadly, like poison, helps to understand these events, as well as the atonement, the judgment, the Great Controversy, and what God is trying to do.

On the contrary, the Fire is said to be eternal, and everlasting. I tend to think God has always been this, just as He has always been. If it is one of your attributes, it's a part of you, right? And "fire" is an attribute of God.

Of course it was a supernatural fire. Are you now confusing "supernatural" and "figurative"? Just because the Fire was Supernatural does not make it any less literal.

There were two kinds of fire in the sanctuary: sacred fire (of Supernatural descent), and common fire. Both of these may have appeared identical, both burned and could consume the oil of the lamps, both were hot and had visible flame, etc. But one was supernatural and sacred, while the other was not. And to God, the distinction was important enough to become a life and death matter.

Tom, did you read the quotes I posted from Mrs. White? She is clear as to the source of the Fire. So is the Bible.

If you truly agree, as you have said, that the same principles will apply in hell as for Sodom and Gomorrah, then we have made some progress. You must then accept the following to be true:

1) God sends the flames and/or kindles the fire.
2) This represents God's vengeance.
3) The wicked die by fire, in the flames.
4) Earth's elements and/or resources provide fuel for the flames.

Mrs. White confirms that the manner in which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is much like the final destruction. She says, "The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah symbolizes to us how this world will be destroyed by fire."

Sin is deadly only because it cannot coexist with God. God's presence will destroy it.

In Early Writings, Ellen White wrote: "The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, 'If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist.'"

This makes it appear that the "cloud of glorious light" which covered the Father actually masked a more intense light which would destroy her, a sinner, if unveiled. That is the image I have of hell-- God will finally unmask Himself, and literal flames and destruction among the wicked will ensue.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In what sense do you think God outshines the sun in the following passage?

The light of the sun will be superseded by a radiance which is not painfully dazzling, yet which immeasurably surpasses the brightness of our noontide. The glory of God and the Lamb floods the Holy City with unfading light. The redeemed walk in the sunless glory of perpetual day. {GC 676.3}

God is a physical Being who also happens to glow. His radiance outshines the sun. I’m surprised you’re unwilling to concede this point.

“The light of the sun will be superseded by a radiance which is not painfully dazzling, yet which immeasurably surpasses the brightness of our noontide. The glory of God and the Lamb floods the Holy City with unfading light. The redeemed walk in the sunless glory of perpetual day. {GC 676.3}


I find it curious you can answer this type of question without volunteering to explain what you do believe. So, here it is – In what way do you think it was different than Raiders of the Lost Ark?


Yes, it does.


I mean real fire from God out of heaven. Is that what you believe? Or, do you believe the fire originated somewhere else?


Yes. But my question is – Do you believe God withdrew His protection and permitted oil or coal or something naturally occurring in the area to burst into flames and kill them relatively painlessly?

God is a spiritual being. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)"

Before there was any matter, God existed. He can manifest Himself as He pleases, for His creatures, who are physical beings.



I've declined to talk about Nabad and Abihu many times, as we covered the subject in detail, so I don't see why you would find this to be surprising.



It would be interesting to see this fleshed out.



GC said nothing about this. I've already said what I think about Sodom and Gomorrah.



We've discussed this in the past.

Tom,

Notice the following verses from the book of Mark:


If we look at a couple of terms in this verse which is repeated three times for emphasis, we can find some fascinating insights.

1) Note that this word "worm" occurs in the New Testament ONLY those three times quoted above.
2) Note that the "worm" does not die in Hell.
3) Jesus does not die in Hell, correct?
4) The wicked will die, however, correct?

Now, note some interesting passages to parallel this:



The "worm" is associated with "the son of man" and with "Jacob." In Psalm 22, a prophetic passage speaking of our Lord, the "worm" is clearly likened to Christ Himself. Remember the serpent on the pole in Moses' time? That also represented Christ.

But, now, take a look at this. What kind of "worm" is meant in the Greek?

BlueLetterBible.org Lexicon: a worm, spec. that kind which preys upon dead bodies

So, it appears that the "worm" is equivalent to the "fire" -- both do not die, are not quenched, are everlasting/eternal. As I have said earlier, God is a fire. Jesus is also the Worm. And in these verses in Mark, we have a glimpse of His role in the judgment of the wicked. It would appear that He claims full responsibility for the final judgment.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since God is sovereign, He accepts responsibility for all that happens in His universe. This is why God is often portrayed as doing that which He permits.

Since sin is deadly, it is not necessary for God to take arbitrary/artificial/imposed action to punish sinners. DA 764 goes into this.

Tom,

Of course God allows that which He does.

If I am driving down the road, and a friend or family member feels I do not know the way, and thinks to know the way better than I do, I may choose to allow them to test their own judgment, by turning the way they desire to go. I am permitting them to see the results of their course. I am, however, the one at the controls.

God is permitting the destruction of the wicked in the same manner. He is permitting them to have the results of their course, while actively granting them those results Himself.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Then Revelation says there will be no need for the sun.

And then there's 2 Corinthians 4:6:
"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness,"

So, it does sound like He is light (glowing, I don't know about).

However, reading the rest of the verse:
"who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Doesn't sound like light in the normal sense. What do you think?