Since certain gasses are deadly, it seems reasonable to assume that God's breath smells like ammonia.

To me, it is clear, it was God's glory the destroyed them. Not that he did it to punish them, or waited until they got to just the right place, and then flared up and killed them. God dwelled with the COI in the Most Holy Place. He had given expressed commands in how they were to approach Him, and Nadab and Abihu violated those commands. This is not vengeance or punishment on God's part. It is a natural consequence. EGW compares it with harmful habits we inflict on ourselves.

Tobacco and liquor pay their wage. God does not have to come down and inflict the punishment. N&A went in where they were told not to go, and indeed could not without suffering death. They destroyed themselves.

Did Satan cause their death? No... and yes. Satan is the originator of evil. He is the one that depraved human nature. He is the author of sin ( and I do take this quite literally ). I do not see Satan coming in and throwing fire on Nadab and Abihu. But he is ultimately the root cause of death.

Given the expressed views here on God’s consuming glory vs. sinners, I would like to hear how it is explained how Satan, as related in Job, could physically come into the Heavenly Realm and even into the physical presence of God, also conversing with God, and that ca. 1700+ years after sin, indeed after God had recently completely destroyed all sin-filled/consumed beings and animals in the flood, and he himself, the originator, “influencer” and sustaining supporter of this utter depth of sin not be instantly destroyed. (Job likely lived after the flood and evidently, before the time of Moses, probably even Abraham). Even if this approaching was not within the “unapproachable light” of God’s glory, it nonetheless should have been enough to instantly incinerate that now tangibly demonstrated vile sinner in Satan, as with the antedelluvians. It seems to me that God only allows sinners to be destroyed by His glory if He wills/allows this to take place and could “dim”/attenuate this power in His glory at will.

In the Bible it says God slew Saul. You personally were not aware of any place where it says differently. That doesn't mean that it doesn't say differently. Suppose that part of the Bible, which you were not aware of, wasn't in there. That still doesn't mean God slew Saul. If there were no such occurrences in the Bible, then I would agree with you. But as Tom and I have pointed out several examples to you, shouldn't that make you think there may be other things going on? I believe you have said yourself that God assumes responsibility for the universe.

When a boss or project leader assumes responsibility, that doesn't mean he caused the mess-up (or success!) but that he takes the responsibility for what happened. A project leader is expected to control/coerce what happens. In the great controversy, do you think God's purpose is to control and coerce everything that happens or is there another purpose?

You have a presumed premise of what fire is, the purpose is, and see a binomial effect that either God killed them or Satan killed them. Could there be other alternatives? How does that match with what Tom has quoted Ellen White as saying numerous times from the Great Controversy?

Questions: Which death? Do you remember Ellen White speaking of what would happen to Satan if he was left to reap (not supernaturally protected) the results of separation from God? Is there a point to his existence for a time versus letting him reap the result immediately? For that matter, is there a point for those of the past and of us in the present to have our current lives and time extended? Is there a point when that extension is no longer useful to us or anyone else?

NJK - I thought you were done with this thread! :-)

NJK - you make some interesting assumptions, but you have not presented in backup scripture or even EGW to support it. First - you don't know that the meeting described in Job was within in "unapproachable light". In fact, it may not even have been in heaven. Rev. 12:7-9 says Satan was cast out. In the book Story of Redemption, EGW says that Satan could never be admitted back into heaven.The SDABC comment on Job 1:6 in fact, points out that we can not assume that the meeting was in heaven. The fact is, we are not told where it was.

You then "eisegetically" state ...should have been enough to instantly incinerate... But recall, Christ came among men, His glory veiled. So NJK - if you have any evidence to support your statement, I'm open to new "light" (pun intended).

Succinctly said, my Theological understanding is that Satan had not yet fully matured his own GC plans and that needed to be fully played out so that his judgement would transparently be seen and understood by all as not having been an arbitrary act of God but indeed a deserved, executed judgement.

My question is still unanswered though: Why didn’t that physical appearance in God’s presence destroy him. That does not seem to harmonize with the stated view that: ‘a being with sin automatically, can but disintegrate when physically in God’s presence.’

Hey APL. In priorly saying “if any” I had left the door to pose some clarification questions as this one on this discussion. Indeed I wanted to have this pointed issue clarified.

Some quick comments:



-It seems to me that the SR 26.1 is speaking of continuing to, and/or residing again in Heaven. Statements like “heaven would be marred should he be received back” also further stress/highlight to me that cohabiting threat vs. mere visit, indeed to “represent the fallen earth”, now his HQ. Maybe it was only after this first visit, as seen in the question to Satan as to why he present here, that He was formally banned from entering Heaven again. Maybe the “Gold Card” system (probably biometric) was set up from then on to authenticate Heavenly visitors??

-We are indeed not explicitly told where the meeting took place but I think that it is logical/sequitur to assume that such a Universe convention took place in heaven. I.e., ‘a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before God.’ Unless God rotates these, seemingly periodic meetings (as SDA do with GC Sessions [i.e., somewhere else in North America!!]).

-Wherever it was, God was manifestly physically there and it seems to me that He would not travel in the unfallen universe, if that was the case, or even if that could be done, without His glory, which He seems to veil only for appearances on earth, which may have all been various physical manifestation of God the Son/Jesus who, as stated below, does not have this destructive glory issue.




That “esiegetical” denunciation/claim here is contextually an overkill here, don’t you think?? Case in point, that SOP passage you’ve cited only speaks of “discomfort” (probably as Moses’ radiant face caused) and not unapproachable, “incinerating glory.” (E.g., John 18:6 - DA 694.5-6)



(There’s actually plenty of (other) new light on my blog if you’re interested!!!...)

Ellen clearly wrote, the "fire" that "blazed out" from the "presence" of God in "the holy of holies" "consumed" Nadab and Abihu. It sounds like you believe Ellen expected us to interpret her words to mean God withdrew His protection and permitted Satan to employ the fire that burned Nadab and Abihu alive.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Did fire blaze out from the presence of God in the holy of holies and burn Nadab and Abihu alive?

2. If not, why did Ellen clearly say so?