Yes, of course, sinners are free to choose to sin. But I’m referring to the resulting outcomes, consequences. For example, N&A were free to choose to employ strange fire. The various outcomes, consequences of their choice was entirely up to Jesus – not chance, not sin, not Satan. Jesus chose to employ fire to burn them alive. So far, you have refused to say who or what employed the fire that killed them.


Whether or not this or that choice plays out this or that way is entirely up to Jesus - not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil choices usually end in evil consequences. Exactly which evil consequence plays out is up to Jesus. Not that He makes it play out that way. But He does manage things so that they do not play out some other way. He either causes, commands, or permits.


As explained above, Jesus is in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan. Evil angels are only as free as Jesus allows. 1 Cor 10:13 is an example.


Jesus established the laws regulating capital punishment. It doesn’t matter if such laws existed. And, the connection between sin and eternal death is real. Sin and sinners cannot abide in the presence of God. The radiant light of His glory consumes sinners with their sins. You seem to think it is sin, not the light of God’s radiant glory, that will consume sinners in final judgment.


Did my wife withdraw her protection and permit her enemies to burn them alive? You seem to think it doesn’t matter.


Who did Jesus permit to employ the fire that killed them? Please don’t say it doesn’t matter. Please answer this question.


The GC concerns us as much as it does God. Jesus will not let Satan tempt us beyond His ability to empower us to resist. This ensures the GC is fair. Very clearly Satan is not free to do whatever he’d like to do. He must obtain permission from Jesus to tempt us or to harm us. What happens is by permission. There are times, though, when Jesus Himself acts to punish impenitent sinners. Ellen wrote: “The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. . . Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {1SP 84.3}


Do you believe it when it says in the Bible that Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? For example, in the Bible it says:

“And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.”

“And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

Also, do you think the father teaching his son how to hunt humanely is the same thing as Jesus commanding Moses to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Is hunting animals and killing humans equal in the eyes of God? Did the father command his son to hunt humanely?

I don't see how that addressed his statements. Why would it take you 10X more time to copy and paste a text right in front of you than it would take for someone to look it up from scratch?

Why do you think that is what Tom is comparing?

Re-read what I actually had said kland and you’ll see that it involves much more than simply “copying and pasting.” If you’re familiar with the Bibleworks interface, you’ll understand the added steps involved here, especially as I am first pasting that copied verse it in a Word Processor. That’s the recursive reality that I would have to repeatedly deal with to meet that optional preference of/for Tom.

It seems Biblically clear to me from Gen 9:5, 6 (NASB) that God Himself instituted Capital Punishment. It may even not have existed as such in the Antediluvian World, and if it did in some form, it was probably purely vindictive, (or merely seen as vindictive) so God here showed that He considered it to be lawful and just. So as Mountain Man said, God later only further regulated it, including the city of refuge provision to make sure that it was always done for a valid reason. And with only 8 people alive on earth when God (formally) instituted it right after the Flood, perhaps in a, at least formally/legally, first instance, then He effectively was saying that this is what He wanted for all those who would descend from these eight people, thus the entire world. At the very least, it shows, as later seen in Formal Israel, that this is what He expects to be the norm amongst His Righteous People.

Also God’s would be, first instance instituting of Capital Punishment is not ‘at odds with Him’ as, as the Bible and SOP clearly state, He was the one who had also made use of ‘brute force War’ to immediately and decidedly settle the initial Battle in the GC conflict in that began in Heaven.

No, I am not familiar with the Bibleworks interface. Why did you assume I was? I went back and read what you wrote and maybe your verbosity, with which you seem to have no issue in reducing the amount of time spent doing it, and making it harder for others to read and comprehend what you are saying (much like this statement with phrases within phrases), got in the way from you saying you copy and paste in a different way than normal people do. Why, I still do not know. What is so unusual of this interface which makes it so cumbersome to use?

What comment?



I think I understand kland's point, which I'll explain later.



You just said you made the comment.



What does this mean? That is, what are you talking about?

Regarding kland's point, you asked me for quotes stating something contrary to the idea that God killed Saul. This could be taken to mean that you weren't aware of any such statements, since you were asking for one to be cited. That was kland's point #1.

Kland's point #2 was that if you weren't aware of any such statements in regards to Saul, then you could also not be aware of other similar statements in regards to other incidents where it says "God did X."

Kland's point #3 was that not being aware of these statements means that the statement you thought was true, the way you were thinking of it, may actually be false.

I'll explain, starting with the statement "God killed Saul." Let's say you're not aware of statements elsewhere explaining that God didn't directly kill Saul, but that he died by some other means (such as taking His own life). The language used, "God did X," sounds as if God did X, when, in reality, God permitted X.

Now if there's some other statement, saying "God did Y," then it's also possible that should also be interpreted "God permitted Y."

You've been arguing all along that since the Bible says "God did X" then that must mean that God did X, as opposed to God's having merely permitted X to occur. We've been pointing out that there are places in Scripture that says "God did X" when, in reality, God permitted X. We've been asking that if in some places in Scripture "God did X" means "God permitted X," why not in others? Also if "God did X" doesn't necessarily mean that God did X, your argument isn't very persuasive.

-“If” is for a conditional statement, and not a ‘believed assumption.’ I certainly, for manifested reasons, do not see a need to presume that you are experientially familiar with Bibleworks, the leading exegetical Biblical software resource.

-My verbosity, which is distinct from protracted sentences*, is intended to avoid such follow up question, notwithstanding that your question here was unnecessary as I had already stated all that is involved in including the text of verses.

-For the sake of my time I’ll skip detailing what is involved in copying from Bibleworks, especially as this here will not make difference in my opting not to include texts or not.

-To you, and also Tom, do consider this my last response on this side show issue.

-(And if further in doubt, when actually applicable, do try Isa 6:9-13|Matt 13:10-17, among other related texts.)

*My protracted sentences mainly come from the way in which I am responding to certain posts. Proofreading would edit these sentences, however I consider it more worthwhile to use that time to include more substantive/supporting information than ‘cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup’ (cf. Matt 23:25, 26) and that does not seem to be a problem as I get very little requests, even if only valid ones are considered, to edit a incomprehensible sentence. Probably just as much, if not less than for you kland. (Indeed, from what I read from and to you, to the contrary, you seem to expect people to read your mind and/or always comprehend your substituting attempts at “wit” instead of substantive/straightforward statements. And not including the texts of verse also provides me more time to focus on added substantivity.

It is quite hilariously LOL comical Tom to see that you have time for such spurious and irrelevant issues which substantively do absolutely nothing to validate your view since, now that you’ve cited your reference, it has been exegetically by that fact that a Hiphil has been used. Take such time to try to deal with that substantive reality instead. All of those hypothetical and philosophical arguments, factually mean/resolve nothing. And you wonder why I can only see that Matt 23:23, 24 fully applies to your case.

And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right. Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element. Indeed your indirect view is thus far based on now two refuted examples (Saul & the Wilderness Serpents, which actually uses a Piel stems to say that ‘God sent the serpents’ (Num 21:6) so, As I exegetically see it, at a certain level, EGW may not have the precise understanding here. Indeed serpents do not usually attack unless they feel threatened so God may have also injected a default “threatened notion” in their “minds”.)

And reread kland’s post carefully to see ‘what comment’ I was referring to.

It is either you think I will come to be swayed or impressed by your emphasis on the peripherals or you really do believe that they being to be paramount and/or determinative in any way. As a serious warning, which can be quite time saving for you, from now on, I will only address what is actually substantive points in your post, indeed as my present time agenda requires it. You’re no the less free to comment on anything you like, just don’t expect an answer from me.

How long did it take to type this? You could have copied and pasted 10 texts in the amount of time it took you to explain why you don't take the time to copy/paste texts. When you add the other times you've been explaining why you don't copy/paste, it could be a hundred texts you could have copied/pasted. If 10 people are reading this posts, and it takes a minute to read each one, that's 1000 minutes, over 16 hours, that could have been saved.

Think of all the trees that could have been saved.



The "oh yeah" is where the sarcasm is made most clear.



If this is your goal, you should address others respectfully and treat them kindly, and with consideration.



Rather than complaining over and over again in a vague way which cannot possibly be addressed, you could simply state whatever point it is you think is being ignored.



If the indication of the grammar was that God was doing something indirectly, then some translation should have made reference to this. I'll cite a few:



Regarding hiphil:







These are all saying that God caused the event of Saul's death, both in the translations, and in the explanation of the grammar.



What's going on in your comments is obvious to anyone reading this thread. Post #132332 makes this clear, for example.

It's common for people to try to hide behind their unfortunate actions as "righteous indignation," but the reality is that we should treat each other in a kind, Christian manner. In the 1888 era, when these sort of actions took place on the part of those resisting the message sent by God through His messengers Jones and Waggoner, EGW offered this sort of counsel countless times. Never was any support given for any contentious sort of response.

There are a couple of events in Christ's life, the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple, which are often misinterpreted as if He were acting in a manner such as you are trying to attribute to Him as a means of justifying your own actions. Reading the accounts in "The Desire of Ages" makes clear that what is being attributed to Christ doesn't correspond to the reality of what happened.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to believe that Christ acted in the unfortunate manner being suggested, it would still be the case that 99% of the time Christ acted as a gentleman, with kindness, tact, and consideration. So perhaps we could aim for that same figure here.



First of all, let's consider how Christ usually dealt with the Jewish leaders. In the beginning of Christ's ministry, Christ was open in His teachings. It was only when He met with opposition that He resorted to less direct methods, such as the parables. The whole time He was doing everything He could to reach the Jewish leaders.

He did this for two reasons. The first was that He loved them, and wanted to save them. The second reason was that He knew if He could reach them, that was the secret to saving the nation.

The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.

Secondly, the point here is that Christ treated Simon gently and with tact not because Simon acted in one manner rather than another (i.e., by means of thinking rather than speaking), but because Christ loved him and wanted to save him.



What "warranted this merciful treatment" was not any action on Simon's part, but Christ's character. Christ is merciful, so He treated Simon with mercy. Mercy is akin to grace in that it's *unmerited* (or "unwarranted") favor, given by one to another not because the other deserves it, but out of the kindness of the one granting it.



This sentence doesn't make sense. At any rate, Christ's motivation was the salvation of Simon.



This is from the first place I looked at that spoke of "brimstone"



This is a pretty well-known idea.



They're doing the same thing you are doing, which is trying to figure out what the text means.



"Heaven" is "the sky." If brimstone is "evoking the acrid odor of volcanic activity" then the idea that this is referring to volcanic activity follows immediately.





I saw this snipped from the google search, but couldn't get more:



I could find more by searching some more, but this should be enough to make the point that's it's an idea that's widely known.

(more later)