I agree with this, although I would change the "some of the things" to "many of the things" in regards to EGW. That is, a great deal of what she writes can be found in Scripture, if one has a discerning eye.

While working with Biblical languages is important, it seems to me a far greater deficiency is a lack of familiarity with the culture and history, the "milieu," which leads to many fanciful interpretations for which there may appear to be a linguistic support, but which, taking into account the historical setting, would be impossible. Perhaps the State of the Dead is an example of this.



It seems really odd to me that you would consider these passages to be foundational when it comes to the question of eternal life and eternal death. Why wouldn't a passage like John 3:16, for example, be more foundational? Or Romans 6:23? Or the many passages in John where life is linked to Christ? Is it really possible that the message of Scripture is that life comes from a tree, as opposed to from Jesus Christ, who said, "I am the resurrection and the life," and of whom it is said, "He who has the Son has life; He who has not the Son has not life"?



Assuming the words of Jesus Christ count as words coming directly from the mouth of God, there are many passages where Christ explains the causes of life and death, including faith in Him and obedience. Since I'm sure you're familiar with them, I won't quote them, but wouldn't you agree that Christ taught that obedience/faith in Him leads to eternal life, whereas disobedience/unbelief leads to eternal death?



Here are points made in the above paragraph, to which you are responding:

1.The Bible is a spiritual book.
2.It is spiritually discerned.
3.If we view death as primarily/only physical, we miss the point.
4.If physical death is the primary/only thing that matters, then there are other deaths more impressive than Christ's.

You didn't respond to any of these points, other than to make a general statement regarding what the Bible "literally" says is what's important. Do you disagree with any of these assertions? If you do, please state so, and state why.

Also, when you speak of what the Bible "literally" says, what do you mean by this? The Bible, being a spiritual book, is spiritually discerned. We need the Holy Spirit to understand it. Our willingness to respond to Him, our willingness to understand and to do God's will are critical to our ability to correctly understand Scripture. Do you disagree?



There are opinions as to whether this meant physically die on that very day, spiritually die on that very day, or begin to die on that day. Aren't you aware of this?



My point wasn't that it can't be understood, but that it's a highly controverted passage. I asked you why you think this is the case. I'll venture to suggest it's because it's a difficult passage to understand.



I think if it were this simple, there would be widespread agreement as to its meaning.



This isn't a reasonable assertion. First of all, it pits personal opinion against factual opinion, which doesn't make sense. You are expressing an opinion, which is yours, so it is certainly a personal opinion. It may or may not be true.

Secondly, what's the point in such an assertion? I can just as readily say that what I'm writing to you are not personal opinions, but are facts. How would that be helpful?



This is a reference to the Sanctuary service, where the greater light referred to the Pentateuch, and the lesser light were the other writings of the Old Testament. The thought is not that the lesser is inferior in terms of quality (i.e., less error-prone), or inspiration.



Is it your idea that these are present in the SOP, but not in Scripture? That's what I'm asking.

Again, you are asserting that what you say is not opinion but fact. I don't see the point in doing so. Anyone can do this. Why bother? Of course you believe what you say is true.



I wasn't asking you a question in terms of Bible vs. Bible, but in terms of Bible vs. the SOP. Your response appeared to be stating you believe the Bible is inerrant, whereas the SOP is not, and that Ellen White was greatly dependent upon some things she understood, whereas the Bible writers were not. I'm wanting to know how the Bible writers could not be greatly dependent upon things they understood.



By "deep exegesis" do you mean more than simply linguistic considerations?



I agree with this, if "deep exegesis" includes an understanding of historical and cultural considerations.



Or our paradigm. I think that's a more likely cause, or, better stated, a more "pregnant" cause. What I mean is that having a wrong paradigm can lead to errors that are real "whoppers," whereas if our paradigm is correct, the errors we have will be of lesser import. For example, the paradigm of some who lived in Christ's day led them to crucify Him.



You didn't answer my questions. They were two. I'll restate them.

1.Do you believe that Ellen White's writings are not inerrant, whereas Scripture is?

You just addressed the first part, regarding Ellen White. You've implied you believe Scripture is inerrant, but haven't explicitly stated so. What I'm getting at is you appear to believe that Ellen White's writings have errors in them, whereas there are no errors in Scripture. I want to know if this is correctly stating your belief.

2.How is it possible that the Bible writers were not greatly dependent upon some of the things they understood?

I'm going to stop here for time considerations. I appreciate your detailed response very much. I'll continue as I have time.

If you'll notice what I said, I said this doesn't mean what you believe isn't true, but that it's original to yourself, which substantiates my point that one (with the singular exception of yourself) considering the cross would not have the idea that not partaking of the tree of life is what causes one's death.



Not popular consensus, but any consensus! I'm just asking you to cite ONE person (other than yourself), that has the view you are espousing.



If there's only one person in all recorded history that has a given view, it should be easy to see why such a view should be treated prudently. Why should I think you alone have the correct view in regards to the cross? I'm just asking for one other "voter" besides yourself.



Where does God Himself in the Bible say that when one considers the cross, the lesson is that one will die if one does not partake of the tree of life? Let's keep in mind that what we're discussing here is the assertion that when one considers the cross, one comes to the conviction that the sure result of sin is death.



I think you've gone away from what I was asking you about. Ellen White wrote that considering the cross brings the conviction that the sure result of sin is death. I said that no one considering the cross would conclude that the sure result of sin is death because of being denied access to the Tree of Life. You disputed this. So I asked you to cite someone, other than yourself, who holds this view.

Here's my assertion: You hold a view regarding the cross that no one else holds.

Please either disprove my assertion by citing someone other than yourself who holds the view you hold, or concur with my assertion.



I've been speaking dying eternally throughout our discussion. I've made this clear by such expressions as "the second death," and quoted from passages which were discussing this.



How about Jesus Christ? What did He mean when He said that whosoever believes in Him should not die but have life eternal? Is Jesus Christ not important in this conversation?

Please present your case in a way that explains 1) why Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle, 2) why Jesus commanded godly people to execute capital punishment, and 3) why Jesus withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature, evil men, and/or evil angels to kill men, women, and children.

The purpose of this exercise is to obtain a correct understanding of the three actions named above. That is, the "way to tackle this question is to first form a foundation based on what God's character is, based on the life and revelation of Jesus Christ, and then come back to these questions."

You wrote, "I believe a correct understanding of God's character would result in the asking of different questions." As it relates to the three types of actions named above, how would you rephrase the three questions I asked above?

PS - "MM, if you would put the post#, that would help a lot, when it's not a recent post." I noticed you also forgot to cite the post number. Must be contagious. Sorry.

Our physical death has nothing to do with whether or not we sin or ask forgiveness. We physically die for the same reason insects and other living beings on earth die.



We do not actually breathe, since at some point our lungs fail, or some other vital body part and we stop breathing? This doesn't make any sense. Of course we actually breathe. We actually breathe until we stop breathing.



The analogy is that if we don't breathe, we die. God created us in such a way that we need to breath in order to live. That doesn't mean that the theological problem of death (the second death) in a physical one.

You're using an argument similar to this one. You're saying that if Adam and Eve died because they were denied access to the Tree of Life, so therefore death (the second death) is a physical problem, related to whether or not one has access to the Tree of Life. I'm saying that the issue of eternal life and eternal death is a spiritual one, depending upon whether or not they have faith in Christ.

I'm saying that just as you are that eternal death is a physical issue because Adam and Eve died because they did not have access to the Tree of Life, so one could argue that eternal death is a physical issue because if one did not have access to air, one would die.

The Tree of Life (and breathing) are means to teach us of our dependence upon God for life. I'm not denying that the Tree of Life has healthful benefits (as does breathing), but am pointing out that the real significant thing is that *God* is life, and is the source of life, and we have life by virtue of being united to Him, which the Tree of Life was meant to teach.



"One could say" is not subjective. It indicates that something could be said in another way. It has nothing to do with subjectivity.

The point is that sin is based on principles which are not conducive to life.



This doesn't address the issue that the principles of sin are not conducive to life. Or maybe it does indirectly, if your point is that it doesn't matter if you sin or not, as long as you have access to the Tree of Life. You could sin as much as you wanted, and you would never die. I guess that's your idea.

So you could be totally separated from God, and not die, as long as you're not separated from the tree.



What about the rest of Scripture? Should I quote some texts which state that life is the fruit of faith, of obedience?



Life is not only a physical thing. Eternal life involves more than physically living forever.



Why do other living beings on earth die? Will they not live forever in the new earth? Will they need access to the Tree of Life?



The life we have by connected to Christ is eternal life, not (merely) physical life.



Here's an example from the first Commentary I happened to run across:



Isn't it evident that a lesson from the parable is that we receive life from Christ? This thought is all over the Gospel of John. Also in his first epistle. Do you disagree?

It sounds like you are saying what I attempted to say, that is, things can only be clear to you personally and does not mean the same thing is clear to others nor does it make it correct nor should that "clearness" be urged upon others.

And speaking of correctness, if I understood you correctly, I do believe you are incorrect about Saul.

MM, I believe I had asked you to state why you thought Tom thought different questions would be asked once one looks at Jesus' life.

I addressed this.



This is how I addressed the above.



What is God's character like? How does God treat His enemies? Given how God treats His enemies, why would God request someone else to act in a way so out of harmony with His own character?



It wasn't a post# from several months ago, was it? If so, I'm also sorry about that. I tend not to include numbers if the post was in the immediate past, but if it's many screens back I try to.

Oh, MM, btw, Welcome Back!

Thank you. I enjoy my work, but I miss my wife terribly when I'm away on assignment.


Indeed, why? For example, why did He command Moses to utterly kill every man, woman, and child? And, what of the other two named above?

I'm hoping to understand why as we study it further. Tom is good at explaining things.