I was giving this as an analogy to the counsels given by God. God has given counsels in relation to things which were not His idea will. God's giving this counsel can be misconstrued as His giving approval to the given event. For example, we are having discussions in this forum regarding polygamy on this very point.



When you make an invalid argument, and this is pointed out to you, it would be good form to recognize this fact.

Given that what Sister White wrote is true, that all that we need to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, then it would have to follow that this applies to the disciples. So the things which they could not bear for Christ to tell them at that time would have had to have been included in other things Christ did tell them. Otherwise what Ellen White wrote would be false, rather than true.

It seems to me you are simply putting forth an argument as to why you don't agree with the Ellen White wrote.

We disagree on this point.

In regards to what Christ could not tell them at that point, don't you think it is evident this had to do with the cross? They witnessed Christ's death on the cross, so what they could not bear at the point referenced by Christ, He did in fact reveal to them. So nothing necessary for them to know was left out, and there's no reason to doubt that what Ellen White wrote, that all they needed to know or could know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ, is true.



I've got several responses going on this. Please choose one of them to respond to, and state whatever it is you're not understanding or have a question about.



No He doesn't. For example, His ideal will is that none should perish, but all come to a knowledge of the truth.



It's true He never "sits back," if that implies doing nothing, but it's not true that He doesn't allow things to happen contrary to His ideal will. Anytime someone suffers is an example of this.



Sure He does. The holocaust is an example. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is another.



Of course God allows evil things to happen in response to the choices FMA's make. That's the whole point of GC 35-37. Evil, in general, is *always* contrary to God's will, and always in response to choices FMA's have made contrary to God's will. How could it be otherwise?



I didn't ask this. Here's what I asked:





Yes it does. That you don't see this is probably the problem we're having.



It doesn't appear that you read what I just wrote above.



I suggest re-reading what I just wrote.



Why not conclude what I wrote?



Exactly!!!



So why ask the question?



I've responded to this at great, great length. The many posts in regards to the father/hunter relate to this question.



Ok, this is a good follow-up. The reason it is a legitimate comparison is because in both cases there is the question of the will of the person speaking being misunderstood.



There's no hinting here at anything.



It was not the father's ideal will that his son should hunt. But if his son was determined to hunt, the father would give him counsel on how to do so in a way that was in harmony with his will. Similarly God has given counsel in regards to many things which are not according to His ideal will. He still does so today.



God isn't in favor of executing anybody. He is in favor of saving them. He gave His Son to save them.



Jesus Christ made clear God's will was to save.



I pointed out to you that you didn't address my question, and you utter falsehoods, and continue not to address the question.

It's a lot more work to do it this way, but I'll try to do it the way you like.



From what you are saying here, it looks right on point, getting to the critical issue (at least, a critical issue).



Only as they left God's mind. Once human beings got involved, they were no longer perfect, as the Scriptures neither represent the logic nor the language of God. (See Selected Messages on inspiration).



It dosn't imply this.



On the other hand, Jesus Christ was God's pen! Jesus Christ was God's thought expressed audible, the perfect representation of God. His was the greatest revelation.





I think you're going down a different one. Namely, replacing the revelation of Jesus Christ with ideas which are not in harmony with what He lived and taught.



??? What is is you think we're disagreeing about???



So when you said, "this fuller revelation in Christ did not change the actual substance of 'historical' OT episodes," you had only specifically the actual words of God in mind? If so, that's not very clear.

If you had more than the actual words of God in mind, then we are dealing with what actually happened, right? And even with the words of God, there are questions, as God often presented Himself as doing what He permits. For example, consider the episode of the fiery serpents. What happened there? Isn't this was our disagreement entails? I believe the serpents were already there, and that God had been protecting the Israelites from them the whole time, and He merely ceased doing so for a time. This is despite the direct language used.



This is in inadequate response for two reasons. One is that the Jews were in at least as great a darkness as the Samaritans, as Elijah couldn't even think of anyone else besides himself who was a follower of God. Secondly, and more importantly, it's missing the whole point of Christ's sadness!



It was the spirit that would have one destroy another, that would seek to compel another, to use force; this spirit is what Christ condemned.



This is clever theory, but it doesn't fit. Christ was saddened because the disciples did not understand God's character nor the principles of His government.



This is what we've been disagreeing about. I've been advocating this very thing all along, that all we can or need to know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of His Son. It was Christ's "whole purpose" to reveal the Father, and, indeed, we need to truth His wisdom and knowledge.



This is what I've been saying all along. The judgments were not violent. This is why I disagree with what you've been saying, as you have been presenting ideas of violence.



Why would He? He understood what happened. (All for now)

Now that I understand your point of view more clearly based on what you have finally forthrightly/clearly stated below, I can actually now see/understand how and why this is “right on point for you, in your view. That is because you believe that OT writers themselves had, actually, a wrong view of God. I would only see that this applies to the parts of the Bible, where these writers were “free” to purely express their own thoughts, derived from their own experiences with God, e.g., the “Writings” of the OT (e.g., Psa/Pro/Eccl), however I also do see that much of the “free” statements by writers was derived from things that God had actually said.

So I also only see that in some parts, Bible writers had an incomplete understanding of God, due to what God could only reveal to them, due to their own failings, revelation frustrating and other shortcomings. Yet what was revealed was quite sufficient for them to come to that full understanding of God. E.g., Moses, after his 40 days up on the mountain had a perfect understanding of God’s Law and also of the Plan of Salvation in the current OT Religious Economy symbols (PP 330.2). I believe Jesus came to this fuller and more complete revelation using this exact “text”, combined with the ever guiding help of the Spirit because of His unwavering, self-initiated, perfect walk in God’s ways and constant obedience to the various promptings of God’s Spirit. So what could not be revealed to people in the OT because of their own shortcomings, could, and was revealed to Christ, particularly as He variously “advanced” and “kept on course” in God’s will.

Israel, by necessity, indeed just as NT Believer have faith in Jesus, and are to be faithful and obedient to Him to remain in harmony with the Father’s will, OT Believers had to do the same thing with the Law.



I do see that the Inspiration of Bible writers was very much like what was seen with EGW. They primarily wrote upon what they had seen in visions and dreams and “heard” from God. Similarly most of EGW “early writings’ were such direct revelations. Then she began to derive testimony from such direct revelations and additional ones. Bible writers similarly did the same thing. However I see that they had a much closer experience with God than did EGW (e.g., Moses’ in person meetings with God.) Indeed God was tangibly in the midst of Israel for many centuries, even right through periods of apostasy, though no additional revelation and (advancing/visionary prophetic) light was given.



Previously I had said that a misunderstanding in Bible writers could have occurred in their actual “ad lib” writings, i.e., vs. writing what God had “directly” revealed. And I do not actually see an example of this “misunderstanding” in the Bible. I understand that you do with, e.g., every instance where it says that ‘God took judgement actions on someone/ a group of people.’ For the many reasons already expressed in this thread, including especially the ones that show that your understanding of what EGW revealed in 14MR 1-3|GC 35-37 was only a secondary way to effectuate judgements, namely “no (more) mercy” judgements, I indeed do see that you are quite wrongly and overreachingly misapplying that view.



Indeed some expression may seem and are ungodly.(None come to mind actually) However I see that the substance itself is not affected by the mode of expression. I also think that the Bible is substantively perfectly revealed in what is prescritive and also, by being truthful, in what it describes. I also think that whenever it relates that God did something, then that is indeed what occurred. (Of course you do see so).

Again, I really cannot think of any theologically substantive error/wrong view in the Bible. Indeed I do not see your view on God’s judgements as being examples of a wrong view.



This text clearly is just saying that “in the same way God had variously spoken through prophets in the past, now spoke through His Son Jesus Christ.” Still it was God who was doing this speaking. Only a different spokesperson was used. Interestingly enough, I only see two times in the Bible where God had to correct a prophets, and that for relatively benign reasons, namely Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7). Seems to me they were quite faithful in correctly transmitting what had been revealed/said to them. So I do not see a basis here that what was recorded in the OT from God was wrongly done.



That is of course because you are viewing/judging things by your view, which I do not see what you are basing it on saying or requiring what you are doing. Even EGW who “would have” expressed it, did not do/say what you are requiring when writing her commenting books on Biblical episodes, namely the Conflict of the Ages series. As seen in e.g, GC 614.2, she also saw and understood that God had done acts of judgement and destructions in the OT and also NT.

EGW’s treatise on the “City of Refuge” in ST, January 20, 1881 is a good example of the perfect mixture of God’s justice and his mercy.



Now that I finally understand your full view of the OT, I can see why you don’t get my incredulity here. I see that the Bible writers did not have a misunderstanding with what had occurred, indeed as confirmed by the similar views of EGW. Of course, you don’t, and think that everywhere that is said that God did something was a misunderstanding and must be restated. I find no Biblical example or support, including from Jesus Himself, for this rewriting of the Biblical text. As I understand the why’s of God’s timely OT judgements, indeed as He did need to timely act to check free developments that, I believed, He did not always anticipate as a concrete possibility (cf. Isa 5:4). All of these acts of judgement are also microcosms and warnings of what the Final Hell destruction will be.



No. These “thus says the Lord” are a distinct portion of the Biblical Text, which I see a paramount in God’s revelation. Similarly to how I see the SOP’s “I was shown” statements. And in matters of history, these Bible writers straightforwardly and matter of factly related what had occurred and I do not see Jesus changing these accounts. Indeed if your view was the Truth, I would think Jesus would be systematically engaging in recorded statements of, e.g.,: ‘you have read “God rained fire on Sodom”, but I say on to you God never does a judgement Himself, and this was actually a volcano that was always supposed to erupt then.’ etc. Seems to me that this work would be quite crucial to Christ reforms, indeed as it would similarly be correcting misconceptions about the, here, History and Prophets, of the OT, just like He had done with the Law and how people came to view it.



This is where I see that you are being finally being forthcoming about what you actually think of Biblical exegesis. Evidently you see it as irrelevant. Had I known this earlier it would have saved me much aggravation because I just could not understand how you would not take exegetical points into proper consider. Indeed throughout this discussion. Manifestly your outright dismissal of whatever points exegesis makes is derived from your view that these writers had it wrong. So there is really no way one can argue against this “double-whammy”, contra-Bible view. I would say that ‘EGW’s writings are effectively, your “Bible”, but as you clearly only subscribe to her statements when she agrees with your claimed view, (i.e., you understood her supposed view better than she did) then I can only see that you are really your own Bible and Biblical Authority. Can’t logically/“sanely” compete with/against that “private” method. Case in point, with the fiery serpents. Indeed rather than respond to the many substantive arguments that I have made debunking from various valid exegetical angles, your “private” view, you here simply claim that ‘exegesis is irrelevant’. Indeed now I finally, head shakingly, understand why you did not bother to answer exegetical points that completely disproved your claims and supposition. All that I can say is: Good Luck with that view. I really don’t understand why, with such an obliviously non-exegetical mindset, you would invest in attending a Seminary and ‘completing its coursework.’



Well given that this is what you think of Elijah, as it is popularly done, I can see why you have this “inadequacy” belief. I have debunked this popular disparaging “misconstruing” of Elijah’s character on this post in my blog (Note #5).

Indeed Elijah was not a mind reader and could not possibly be faulted for not knowing about these 7000 “silent” ones. He was indeed by now the only one openly, courageously denouncing and opposing apostasy in Israel.



First of all, EGW actually says that Christ was “pained” (DA 487.2) which may not be necessarily out of sadness. The fact that these disciples of His had manifested a ‘Spirit of Satan’ here, as He rebuked them, was frustratingly ‘paining enough,’ given that these were the ones who were suppose to continue His work, yet they still had not understood the emphasis of His mission.



And, just like in the War in Heaven, my point here, as stated below, was that this was not an issue of deserved judgement, as in Elijah’s case. If it was, then I see that Jesus would not have rebuked His disciples, even if that judgement was to be delayed (e.g, Matt 11:20-24), given the actual paramount mandate He had in this present mission as expressed in Luke 12:49, 50. So I do not see that my wider exegetical point contradicts what EGW had expressed. They both contribute to the actual issues at hand here.



It is not a “theory”, it is what proper and responsible Biblical exegesis fully reveals, as it takes into consider all contributive points (cf. Isa 28:10). Biblical understanding is also not limited to what EGW says. The Bible is the Greater Light. So I see that here, she only emphasized a part of the actual fuller issue involved here, as seen by Christ’s reaction just one chapter later in Matt 11:20-24|Luke 10:10-16 under different “knowledge” circumstances.

And, indeed, as EGW states, an act of “judgement” here, at this stage, would only be a ‘forceful act to compel’. However the notion of compelling is not what is at the forefront when deserved and necessary judgement is being executed. The necessity of the judgement trumps the potential compelling that can occur if those observing freely choose do use it as such.



And I do not see that Jesus revelation made it that what was expressed in the OT needed to be understood differently. The problem with you is that you cannot transparently substantiate the validity of your view. I.e., in what it fully implies and tangibly necessitate. This also includes what you are claiming for EGW’s statements. I am rather guided by transparent exegesis, which I understand can and does correct EGW. So the only choice I have with your view is to actually accept what you (privately) think and I just won’t, even really can’t do that since I instead paramountly follow the Bible. So this issue of “Actual and Final Authority” is really what we foundationally are in disagreement over.

Also my Trust of Jesus includes all of His statements, whereas, as by now copiously substantiated during this discussion, I see that you are selectively viewing some as weighty, even valid. I.e., only when they harmonize with your view. Again I cannot subscribe to what I can only factually see as, (effectively), being: “the Gospel of/according Tom”. And like other “non-canonical” gospel works E.g., the Gospel of Thomas, it only includes certain, even rephrased sayings of Jesus that harmonize with an overarching private view. In the case of the author of the Gospel of Thomas, this was Gnosticism.



Of course you want to be strictly saying her that ‘they did not involve any forceful or even paining action from God Himself. This is where I am not seeing any Biblical support for you. Indeed as easily seen by the fact that God Himself legislated capital punishment. Even e.g., injunctively ordering, after apparently some tangible deliberation on the issue, that a person who had been caught violating the Sabbath be stoned to death (Num 15:32-36). To accept your view as valid and subscribe to it necessitates that any such, even direct statements of God be either outrightly ignored/dismissed or deemed as errors. One then really does not have a Bible left to have faith in. Let alone seeing it as the Inspired Word of God, containing a substantively correct message.



Well for one thing to explicitly help people to have the proper understanding as He explicitly did with misconceptions of the Law. Indeed this would mean that even His own disciples were never privately instructed as to what really had happened in OT episodes, as they continued to refer to them just as they read in the OT. The episode with James and John would also have been te perfect occasion to set the substantive record straight as to what really happened when the OT says/implies that God granted the request of Elijah and fire came down from Heaven right then and there. Even EGW did not “understand” the correct view here, according to your understanding.

These persisted misunderstanding would contradictorily imply that Jesus did not complete the revelation of the Father that He was to do, either with His disciples, or later through EGW.

Your view is indeed full of such inconsistencies due to its subjectivity and selectiveness resulting in a one-sided stacking. That is indeed why you manifestly believe that ‘a more “attractive” view could/should be the right one vs. what is actually the Biblical truth. Again one just cannot win against such a mindset. At the very least you should have been more forthright about that, especially as you touted that you were a Seminarian, which logically/“prima facie” implies a person who takes Biblical exegesis seriously.

This “selective methodology” of yours also explains why you just don’t answer/acknowledge any type of point for which you do not have an answer. Indeed I should have long ago got the cue from your statement that you are involved in a discussion simply to bolster your view. Clearly you won’t let the facts, exegetical or scientific, get in the way of that objective.

Why disagree with it? Just say, Yes, of course, I agree. Jesus was responsible for ensuring evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them, that is, He did not let them cause more death and destruction than He was willing to permit.


Your response seems to imply you believe Jesus works to prevent them from causing any and all forms of death and destruction. If so, did He fail? That is, did He fail at preventing them and it accounts for why they caused so much death and destruction? If so, why wasn’t Jesus successful?


Do you believe Jesus worked to prevent them from exceeding His limits because otherwise they would?


Why didn’t they exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them?


What criteria did Jesus use to determine how and what punishment would be inflicted? Did the punishment He envisioned require the involvement of evil men and evil angels?


What motivated Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit evil men and evil angels to inflict the punishment He determined was appropriate and worked to ensure they did not exceed?


Who, then, if not Jesus, determined the limits of punishment to be inflicted on them?

Tom, you say that in the past you have plainly stated who caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. For the life of me I cannot recall what you said about it. For the record, would you please state it again here and now? I know you believe Jesus withdraws His protection and permits His enemies, within the limits He imposes on them, to punish and destroy impenitent sinners. But in the case of N&A I have absolutely no idea who you believe caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned them alive. Regarding the punishment and death of N&A, Ellen wrote:


Nowhere does she say or imply anyone other than Jesus burned N&A alive. And yet you seem to think she believed Jesus did not cause fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive. Isn’t it obvious to you, based on all the quotes I posted above, that she clearly, plainly said it was Jesus who employed the fire that burned N&A alive? If not, where does she specifically say otherwise?


In the ST July 17, 1884 passage I quoted above she makes it clear it was Jesus who employed fire to burn N&A alive. Nothing she said implies it was someone else who did it. It also clear she believed it was Jesus who commanded King Saul to utterly kill every man, woman, child, and infant and then rejected him as king because he refused to obey every detail of the command. According to you, however, this isn’t something Jesus would do. To answer your questions:

1. What in Jesus' life or character would lead you to believe that He wants to burn people alive if they don't do what He says? Jesus said, “The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

2. Where did He ever do anything even remotely similar to this? He didn’t burn anyone alive while here in the flesh.

3. How did He respond when it was suggested He do so? He rebuked them.

4. Where during His mission did Jesus ever even physically harm any person, even in the slightest manner? He didn’t. But He clearly taught He will, at the end of time, punish impenitent sinners with everlasting, unquenchable fire. “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. I will burn you up with unquenchable fire.”

Actually, on this thread, I am interested in your answer as it applies to Jesus commanding Moses to kill ungodly people. What was Jesus’ ideal will in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer? Please post inspired passages to support your view, that is, passages which speak directly to these two cases (as opposed to you citing other examples and insisting the “principle” applies). Thank you.


“All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” {8T 286.1} The explanation I gave regarding this insight is valid. It does not disagree with her point. The idea that “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” should be interpreted to mean Jesus “did in fact reveal to them” everything there is to know about God’s character and kingdom seems rather contradictory.


In particular, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Or, do you suspect Moses misunderstood what Jesus said? I ask these questions because in the Bible it says:

1. “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.”

2. “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.”

Is there any reason why we cannot take the Bible as it reads? That is, are we not obligated to read these two passages and logically conclude Jesus did indeed “command” Moses to kill them? Please don’t misunderstand the question. I’m not asking what Jesus’ ideal will was in these two cases. Hopefully you will address this aspect of the situation in the first response above.


No one suffered or died in ways not permitted by Jesus in the examples you cited above. More to the point, Jesus worked hard to ensure evil men and evil angels did not exceed the limits He imposed on them. Consequently, they suffered and died in the ways they did because it was Jesus’ ideal will (under the times and circumstances) as opposed to them suffering and dying in other ways. Of all the ways people can suffer and die, Jesus chose which ways He was willing to permit evil men and evil angels to cause them to suffer and die. Which begs the question – Why didn’t Jesus work to prevent it? There are a million ways Jesus could have employed, without violating freewill, to prevent the cases of suffering and death you named above.


1. Because Jesus no longer requires it. 2. I suspect that is partly why. 3. True. 4. True.

What is your point as it relates to Jesus commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker?


Do you really think insisting that I read between the lines will ensure I arrive at the correct conclusion? Please, Tom, for the millioneth time, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?


Your enthusiatic response does not help me understand your answer to the question – Did Jesus, while here in the flesh, command godly people to kill ungodly people? If not, why did He do so in the OT?


None of your responses provide enough insight for me to correctly conclude what you believe. Please plainly state what you believe. The humane hunter story does not help me understand why Jesus commanded Moses to kill ungodly people. I suspect you believe, yes, Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is this what you believe? Or, have I somehow misunderstood what you believe? Please explain. Thank you.


Was it Jesus’ will for Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If not, why, then, did He “command” Moses to kill them?


Was Moses determined to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer? If so, why did he inquire of Jesus as to the right and righteous way to punish them? And, why didn’t Jesus express His ideal will when Moses was uncertain what to do?


Yes, of course, it is God’s will and desire to save everyone. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

You and I both know and believe the majority will not be saved. What is unclear to me is if you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer. Jesus “will by no means clear the guilty.”


The title of this thread is – “Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death?” I have no idea what your answer is to this question. The only thing you’ve said so far is that the Bible often portrays Jesus saying or doing something which is contrary to His will and desire. From this insight you insist that I deduce your answer to the question that serves as title for this thread. It would save a lot time and energy if you would simply, clearly, plainly answer the question (rather than relying on me to deduce what you believe based on the clues you've posted thus far).


Please answer the two questions posted above. Thank you.

What I'm saying is that it could be the case that the people were viewing the act of sacrifice (performing of some rite) as pleasing God (like going to church would, or some act of penance), and not that God was necessarily being viewed as blood-thirsty.



Grain could be used if an animal could not be afforded.



What do you think the meaning of sacrifice was in Hebrew culture? It should be possible to express this succinctly.



It doesn't sound like you're trying to make a joke here, so I take it you're not familiar with the expression. A heavier sacrifice has nothing to do with mass, but with how onerous the sacrifice is.



Not "a cattle," but "cattle."



It can't be both ways. Either the child is a greater sacrifice, in which case Molech was demanding more, not less, or it was a lesser sacrifice, in which case Jehovah was more demanding.



This seems to have nothing to do with whatever point you were making in regards to Molech.



Ok.



People's perceptions is a part of exegesis; this can't be ignored.



It is the same point. I summarized the main points I've been making, and that was one of the points.



I've been making this point all along. I've said that if we see something in the OT that looks different than what we see in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then our perceptions of the OT are different than what Jesus Christ's was, since He spoke what He heard and lived what He say in the OT.



The historical account is processed by the brain. The processing of what is recorded involves one's perceptions, world view, paradigm, etc. The inspired writers are God's penmen, not His pen.



Indeed. Why is why if we have a view of what the Bible writers wrote which is violent, for example, or contrary to what Jesus taught in some other way, that view is suspect.



That's not the case. The story was meant to bring out a lesson, and that lesson would not be understood, if only applied to Job.



If this was a one-time incident, it could hardly have accomplished the purpose God had intended, showing that Satan is the author of sin and all its results.



It sounds like you're commenting before you're read what was written. You should wait to comment until the point has been made.



Same comment. You'd be better off reading first. Then comment.



This doesn't make sense. Here's the statement by Ellen White:



This is exactly what I've been saying. How is this not contrary to your view?



Sure, it's the act of withdrawing His protection, which is how God destroys. That's the point that's been made all along.



There's no implication of this. Please take another look at the Ellen White statement quoted above.

The serpents weren't the only danger God was protecting the people from. He was protecting them from all sorts of dangers. All He had to do was withdraw His protection. There was no need for some other action to make the snakes be more snake-like.



God simply withdrew His protection, as stated. If you add something to this, you take away from the force of the inspired writer's point. Ellen White's point was that God withdrew His protection.



Here's how I understand the doing:



I don't know how to put it any more clearly than this.



First of all, there is no hint of this in what was written. Secondly, if what you are postulating were true, it would contradict what actually was written, which should be easy to see.

Think about it. If it was God's purpose that the Israelites recognize the protection He was constantly providing against the snakes, it makes no sense to say that God *provoked* the snakes to attack the Israelites. In this case, God would not have been protecting the Israelites against the snakes at all!

If God could remove His protection, and nothing would have happened against the Israelites, then His protection was unnecessary to begin with, and removing it would not teach the Israelites that His protection was necessary.



This isn't a viable idea, as explained above.



The ones I have cited certainly haven't been debunked. We have the plain statements regarding the serpents above, so that stands. Also the destruction of Jerusalem. This is certainly clear:



I'm not sure what the other 5 are. I mentioned it saying that God killed Saul, when Saul actually took his own life. That's clear.

Another one that comes to mind is God's sending strong delusion upon those who love not the truth. EGW explains this as God's turning them over to the delusions they already had.

I've quoted from Deut. 32, as I recall. There are a number of similar statements throughout Deut, in the early 30's, that are similar (regarding God's wrath viz a viz His hiding His face, and permitting troubles to come upon them).

Ellen White has statements regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (e.g. "But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also ... (1T 292).

She spoke of the spies that were sent (Scripture says "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan." EGW: "Here it was proposed by the people that spies be sent to survey the country. The matter was presented before the Lord by Moses, and permission was granted." (PP 387)

In Job we read "God said to Satan, 'You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause (Job 2:3). EGW: "The history of Job had shown that suffering is inflicted by Satan." (DA 471)

David's numbering of Israel is sometimes attributes to God (2 Sam. 24:1) and sometimes to Satan (1 Chron. 21:1)

Regarding Israel's being invaded: "By their transgression of God's law, the people of Judah had forfeited His protection. (5T 749)

Regarding David's punishment Scripture says "I will raise up evil against the out of thing own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto they neighbor" (2 Sam 12:11,12).

EGW: "Not that God prompted these acts of wickedness, but because of David's sin He did not exercise His power to prevent them" (PP 739).

So there are quite a few examples of God presenting Himself as doing that which He permits.

(All for now).

And there are quite a few accounts of Jesus actually doing what the Bible said He did (I'm referring to accounts of death and destruction). For example, Jesus really did "command" Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the Blasphemer.

I don't think this is the right way of thinking about this. God is infinite, so no human (besides Jesus Christ) could have a view of God that was complete. What I said was, "They certainly didn't have as clear a view of the character of God as Jesus Christ."



All throughout the Bible the Bible writers are communicating their thoughts. They are God's penmen, not His pen.



I'm not sure what your point is here. It sounds like you're agreeing with me in regards to what I said about Jesus Christ.

What I have been saying is that Jesus Christ was the clearest revelation of God. It was the whole purpose of His mission to reveal God. This was necessary because of the work Satan had been doing to misrepresent God's character. Until the cross, even holy angels were impacted by Satan's misrepresentations.



Ok.



What you wrote was stronger than this. You wrote, "to say that these Bible writers got it wrong, implies that God Himself wrongly expressed, legislated and/or otherwise reveal it." Again, I wouldn't say that the Bible writers got it wrong, but that God is infinite, and they are human. God as a writer is not expressed in Scripture in terms of rhetoric or logic is what I recall the EGW quote to say.



She never said that this was a secondary way to bring about judgments. This is simply an assumption you have, and one which is contrary to various principles she articulated, including, to name a few:

1.The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.
2.Compelling power is found only under the government of Satan.
3.All that we need to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son.
4.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.
5.Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.

You've never adduced any evidence that what she has said above is a "secondary way to effectuate judgments." That there is such a thing, as multiple ways to bring about judgments, is under dispute. The way that I have said that God brings about judgments is in harmony with the principles laid out above. If God had some other way of bringing about judgments, not in harmony with the above judgments, that would be problematic. God's character is consistent.



Certainly one's understanding of what another communicates, which is what we're talking about, is impacted by the mode of expression.



The Bible often presents God as doing that which He permits. This is a principle, like "forever" does not necessarily mean "for all eternity." So when we say something occurred, like God killed Saul, what does that mean? It might mean that Saul took His own life. Or when it says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, what does that mean? It might mean that God did nothing more than remove His protection. Or when God sent strong delusion against those who received not the love of the truth, that might mean that God left to them to their own delusions.

There are all sorts of examples like this.



You don't see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a wrong view? So you see my view on God's judgments as being examples of a correct view?



I don't know anybody who interprets this text this way. I've never heard this idea until now.





These were chosen because they're easy to find. I hadn't read what these had said, but just looked for *any* commentary, because this explanation is the only I've ever heard, and seems clear just by reading the text.



The point is that Jesus Christ is greater. This is the theme of Hebrews in a nutshell.



What are your responding to here? Where have I said that anything was wrongly done? Haven't I been saying that the problem is with how what was written has been perceived?



Of course. And you are viewing/judging things by your view, which is why you say the things you say.



From GC 614:



These are the same ideas I've been sharing. This is the context of the text you're referencing.



The most detailed explanation I've see in the first chapter of the Desire of Ages. The chapter on the revolution in France also is pretty detailed, and is along the same lines as the first chapter.

It's helpful to note principles involved. I've already articulated some. We know that at times God works as explained in GC chapter 1, and that this example has God working things out in harmony with the principles articulated before. Does He sometimes work differently, according to other principles? I don't see that you've made any such case.



It doesn't appear that you do. If you could articulate my position in a way that I would agree with, I would agree that you understand my view. Are you able to do so?



The issue is not with the Bible writers!



You're being inaccurate here. What I've said is that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and I've given many examples of this, both from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.



I've given over a dozen examples of what I asserted.



I haven't been discussing with you as to why the judgments occurred, but the mechanism involved in the judgments.



Yet again, this is not the issue.

Jesus Christ said what He heard, and lived what He saw, of God as revealed in the Old Testament. He read the same accounts as everybody else, so the problem is not with the accounts!

The problem is with one's perceptions of what was written. These perceptions are often at odds with what Jesus Christ revealed in His life and teachings.



Light is progressive. Jesus Christ spoke of the things which He felt were most pressing at the time. There are all sorts of things which are true of which Jesus Christ did not address directly.



I think what Ellen White wrote here addresses the issue you are raising:



The whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. He revealed the principles I'm articulating; love your enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the second mile. Christ gave His life for His enemies. He never recommended violence, and when it was suggested He burn them, He rebuked those who thus suggested because they did not know what spirit they were of. He died the most horrible death at the hands of those who hated Him. He returned kindness for cruelty.



How does what you're saying here in any way tie into the points that I just made? Or questions I asked?



You're not being responsive to what I wrote.



This is also not responsive. You're also misrepresenting my view.



You can argue as you are, but misrepresenting the view of the person you are discussing things with, and then argue against that.



These are just insults and name-calling. I've surprised you either don't recognize this, or don't realize there is no value in this. You're not addressing points made, nor answering questions. You're simply misrepresenting my view and hurling insults my way.

I'll stop here.

If you wish to dialog regarding ideas, I'm happy to do so, but I don't have a desire to engage in mud-slinging.

And my point is that since sacrifices involved blood, and as shown in those cited verses, God pointedly objected to this shedding of blood, He evidently perceived this thought amongst His people continuing to offer these sacrifices. I’ll exegetically go by what God noticed.



Grain could be used if an animal could not be afforded.

(1) Cite the (some key) references.

(2) Then (a) it was not a “sacrifice” and (b) given the socio-economic laws of Israel, there was not many poor amongst them. So the vast majority of these religious (generally speaking) offerings were “sacrifices”. So the objecting statements were made in the factual light of that ‘vast majority reality and norm.’



It actually is not since sacrifices had different meanings and purposes. Furthermore, what I think their meanings were is actually irrelevant to the fact that blood was being shed when they were offered and also to the point that God abhorred the mindlessness and mere routine way in which this was being done, as if this physically and Theologically prominently involved ‘shedding of blood’ (Heb 9:22) is what God wanted.

Indeed still today, people most prominently and disgustedly notice blood in deaths. Which is a major reason why crime scenes are so visibly restricted and non-mediatized, but funeral viewings are widely “acceptable”. It’s the same dead body, minus especially, the spilt and splattered blood.



Well in context, your choice of word here was, and actually still itself remains, indeed quite confusing to me, indeed given the involved pun. Can’t blame me for straightforwardly seeing that a “heavier” sacrifice has everything to do with mass.



Great! A million thanks! My Biblical understanding on this topic is assured now!?? Wish you were so particular about what substantively matters such as proper Biblical Exegesis, which you, as “claimed” should “completely” know about.



My statement does not imply that ‘it is both ways’. Since the life of a human/child was “technically” though intangibly understood to be more valuable than cattle, and since a single sacrifice of this life was tangibly less costly than that of animals per year on top of tangibly caring for that still alive child then it was synonymously seen that a child sacrifice was a better and more valuable sacrifice than an animal. Indeed both cases, it would be understood that the sacrifice of the child was evidently more valuable than what God required.



Only if you must not see so. And such spiritual things are only spiritually discerned.



So, as I said, you are here saying that what these Bible writers “exegetically” wrote down, (i.e., using various Hebrew grammatical forms and syntactical arrangements), needs to be corrected because they wrongly perceived things. So in that case the Bible really cannot be exegetically studied. It instead has to be ideologically reconsidered. That inclusively clearly changes much more than the ‘jots and tittles’ of the OT text that Jesus had approvingly spoken of. (Matt 5:17, 18).

Indeed with Jesus saying here that He would not change what had been written, and then going on to address the misconceptions of people prove to me that the OT is to be textually exegetically studied. And that includes proper contextualizing, which indeed is the basis of Christ’s ‘perception correcting’ work.

Furthermore, the copious use of the LXX by NT writers is proof to me what was recorded in the OT was not in any way seen as misperceived and misrecorded by these post Christ NT Writers, because they then were primarily working from what had been perceived of the OT Hebrew text than additionally what had also been textually recorded.



Well I do not see your supposed ‘ideology over textual exegesis’ to be Biblically valid/validated.



For the many reasons and examples that I have stated from the Life of Christ most of which you have either completely ignored or stopped responding to when your latest objections/arguments were disproven/debunked, then I indeed do not see that Jesus did not ever act in any way that they OT God did as it is straightforwardly, exegetically read. And like I have also said many times before, it was not in Christ’s mandate to effectuate physical judgements, however justified they would have been (Luke 12:49, 50; Matt 11:20-24; 23.)

Furthermore, as seen in my Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland 27th|UBS 4), the following non-bold portion of Luke 9:55, 56 is disputed and did not appear in early NT Greek manuscripts. (Cf. NIV, NJB, RSV/NRSV which do not include them at all. NASB only includes it in square brackets with an doubtfulness note):



And EGW’s copious commenting on this disputed portion in her writings (e.g,. DA 487.2; 582.2; COL 212.1) is not a necessarily proof that it was valid. Still if, similarly as the NASB’s bracketed inclusion (vs. a complete non-inclusion) is allowing as a possibility, this is only saying and substantiating that it was not in Christ’s mission then to ‘destroy the life of men’. However that will be different when He puts on the robe of vengeance (cf. Isa 63:1-6).

So for such exegetical reasons, I do not at all see here your “perceived difference-caused” need for reconsidering the OT.



That would potentially only apply in cases where they say ‘God did or said something’ in their historical writings. However those accounts were based on first hand observations that were significantly enough reinforced by God’s prophetic voices then. I.e., by men under direct inspiration of God. Indeed the writing of OT Biblical books are typically the putting into a historical/story context the first hand memoirs of people who were known to be directly/prophetically inspired and quoting verbatim what they had said and heard from God. (E.g., the composition of the book of Daniel in here (Section: The Sealed Scroll of Daniel)).

Moreover, many of these related acts of God were fulfillment so what God had revealed to such inspired prophets that He would do. So even in Historical portions, your supposition does not check out.

And as seen in the book of Job and Genesis which Moses wrote, it was God Himself who gave Moses visions and inspirations of what had occurred. So, e.g., in the case of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses was not shown a volcano as you do/claim.



This ‘violent viewing’ is only a supposition of yours. The OT Bible, as confirmed by Jesus is clear that God uses force, and that to any deemed just extent, to effectuate judgements.

You simply do let all of Jesus’ statements contribute to what taught/said/did. Perhaps you here also believe that NT Gospel writers such as Matthew, Mark/Peter, Luke and John also had the similar misperception problem as OT writers did in recording what Jesus said and did??



Your point does not address my remark. I was not speaking of why Moses wrote the book of Job, or what is to be the purpose of the book, but said that Moses’ independently copiously supplied accounts in pointedly chapters 1 & 2 served to prefacingly give the Historical/GC background context for the rest of the book which is mostly the direct words of Job and his friends.

What is understandably/pastorally derived, as done by EGW, from what Moses had supplied is a distinct issue. What God revealed to Moses served to make this clarification, showing us what really happened, and from their such Theological understanding of purpose can then be made.



Job’s case was indeed a situation of “suffering” as Job did not do anything deserving of judgement. So that example indeed shows, and clearly at that, even if it is the only demonstration of that (as EGW “a lesson” seems to imply), showing that God indeed does not cause “sufferings”. However an act of judgement is not ‘causing sufferings’ even if it involves physical sufferings. It is because you cannot see the Justice of God’s character in what He either did or commanded to be done in judgement that you are not making any difference here. The lesson of Job is not that God does not (actively and forcefully) do judgements.



[No answer here?]



As shown above and as I already understood from your view, that is what your view entails especially as it also includes direct statements and actions of God. Your view is simply not Biblically realistic.



Same answer as above.

You actually need to be more forthcoming with what you believe instead of dodging and ignoring direct questions on points that would plainly explain/state your view. It is clear to me that you are not comfortable with what your view actually necessitates and thus either defensively, partially and/or diversionarily address, when you actually do, questions on it and/or comments that rebutt/disprove it.

As your approach is not at all exegetical, but (spuriously) merely ideological, it is quite normal that you do not consider all contributive points and implications involved with your view.



Really only through/in your non-exegetical approach and resulting “world”.



(1) One because for me EGW is not the final authority here. Biblical Exegesis is.

(2) God’s permitting can also involve Him acting to do what He permits. So this removal of protection, naturally and scientifically, as corroborated by Biblical Exegesis was manifestly an act of both attracting these snakes within the camp and “making” to be feel threatened. The snakes just coming into the camp did not guarantee that they would be fearful of the people walking by/around them. God’s power was probably simply to appease any sense of threat that these serpents may have developed, whenever He saw that they arose.

Furthermore, this is only a part of what EGW fully said on the topic and, as shown before, what she said then agrees with the exegetical notions of the Bible.



And I have said all along in response to this view of yours is that I only see an action where Satan is tangibly doing something as not being an action of God. Satan was not involved at all in this judgement and as the Bible says God sent these snakes amongst the people and that to bite them. I just do not ascribe to either your non-exegetical view here nor seeking to, and that partially, make EGW the final authority here.

Because of your non-exegetical approach which self-justifies your repeating of exegetically debunked points, you are just causing me to go around in circles here on those already discussed points.



There exegetically is in the Bible Of course your approach does not require that you ever take such exegetical points into consideration. How convenient.



That’s besides the points since snakes was the method of punishment chosen by God. Indeed why not also scorpions? I understand the reason to be because of the object lesson that He wanted to teach Israel. Fire from Heaven, as in other cases, would not make this lesson that they needed to depend on Him for protection from such existing dangers clear.



As stated before, there scientifically is as most snakes “naturally” do not attack humans, or even venture near them, if they could avoid this.



And my point, using the Bible as the final authority in such matters of seeming difference with the SOP, is that the Bible pointedly indicates otherwise. So I harmonize the SOP revelation with what the Bible says and indeed do not see a contradiction between those two testimonies. So I indeed see that this ‘withdrawal of protection’ involved the forcefully ‘drawing’ and ‘interesting’ (i.e., feelings of an imminent threat) with these snakes. I do not have an either or approach with the Bible and SOP, especially when it means that what the Bible exegetically reveals has to be discounted in any way or outrightly ignored.



Already/also answered above.



Use an exegetical approach, and subject this EGW statement to the Greater (exegetical) Light of the Bible, indeed as counseled by EGW herself.



Then EGW did not have/state the full Biblical revelation here. She was just given additional details of what had occurred. Her other statement however do involved the Bible’s “sent” notions though she does not make exegetical explanations. However she did not see a need to not quote the/her Bible as it read here, indeed as she did with Jesus’ statement in John 20:17.



It does not if/since the protection involved was manifestly ‘keeping these snakes from feeling threatened whenever this became necessary.



Israel would not know this difference. All they saw was that there was no snakes around them. So just making these snake come and bit them would have conveyed that notion irrespective of how God went about to do it. The Bible writers did not have this problem in rightly indicating that God had forcefully done this. Indeed Israel still learned the lesson through this accurate depiction of what had occurred. You are the one who does think this can be done.



He was doing so as the natural need was.



As I said, the removal of His protection involved both no longer appeasing those feelings of fear when they would now naturally occur and also forcefully injecting it in them Himself with those that did not naturally develop them.

Indeed God manifestly may conversely first have made the snakes feel perfectly comfortable with these humans, thus resulting them in now coming into the camp, and no longer staying away as before, but then also then feeling threatened once in the midst of the
people “defensively” beginning to attack the people.




It substantively is, as explained above, for a matter of “sufferings” (vs. judgement) which dobly is not your ‘no pain at all, even in Divine judgements’ view.



The ones I have cited certainly haven't been debunked.[/quote]

Yes they have. It is only your non-exegetical method that circularly enables them to be impervious to the Biblical exegesis that debunks them.



And I have the more authoritative statements of the Bible. And it is your partializing view that does not “stand”, as I indeed do not see that EGW’s statement is contradicting the Bible.



Already fully dealt with, and again your, factually speaking partializing and exegetically-indifferent view is what does not stand here.



Look them up. It there in this threads record.



Only through/in your non-exegetical view with its supposed ‘incorrect understanding’ basis. I see that this writer God it right and God somehow indirectly psychologically acted to cause Saul to kill himself on that very day as He wanted it to timely occur.



Already explained. Why won’t you address what I have said in response??



I neither retrace nor recall. Indeed state precisely the post, and/or even which one of the 52 verses of Deut 32 you have in mind.



I already commented on your ‘hiding face’ comments. You just stopped discussing it when you manifestly did not have an answer to my latest comment against your claimed view here.



Already addressed. Obviously exegesis means nothing substantive to you and you also believe that Moses understood God wrong when God said that this is what He was going to deliberately do to Pharoah. Indeed this was a warning to Moses so that Moses would not lose heart when God would make Pharaoh refuse to obey Him.



And???? How does this support your view??



The word “incite” (#05496) has the basic meaning of: ‘move, persuade’. Nothing in it is ineherently evil. Also the NASB reading of “to ruin him without cause” is more accurate here. From the more literal reading is “to engulf him (in ruin) without cause.”

It indeed proves that this was not an act of judgement by God. God’s judgements are, even through postponing (Gen 15:13, 16) always ‘with (fully corresponding) cause’.



Again this is non-judgement sufferings.



I have addressed those passages in this post. I’ll further exegetically amend that 2 Sam 24:1 should accurately read as:



Indeed it is not logical for God to be both the object and subject of this sentence. The statement would have then rather said: The LORD caused His (possessive pronoun) anger to be added....”

Also it may have been those non-specified, but known, “he’s” in the prior 2 Sam 24:1 account that prompted the writer of 2 Chr to editorially specify this person as Satan.



Full EGW statement:



(1) That is only one instance of invasion vs. the many others that occurred by God’s drawing/stirring up action. E.g., Babylon.

(2) Assyria apparently had of themselves decided to go and invade Israel and Judah and God seeing this risen threat sent Isaiah to Judah to seek to get them back in state where they can be protected by Him in warfare and thus avert this looming disaster. The Kingdom of Israel did not survive this ever present Assyrian threat. (2 Kgs 17:6, 23)

Also, as seen in Isaiah 10:1-19; God evidently sees no difference in his ‘forfeiting/withdrawing’ His protection in regards to the Assyrians and Him doing acts of destruction through them.

Still based on what EGW fully said in 5T 749 in regards to ‘judgement of God due to perversity’ and God indicating in e.g, Isa 10:5, 6, 12, 15 that He was variously sending and using Assyria at will and for His purposes, I see that God could easily force Assyria, through rumors/insinuations (e.g, Isa 37:7), to attack Judah in judgement. So either way, i.e., either through an “organic” self-willed attack by Assyria or by a Divinely-caused one, God could have effectuate a judgement when He saw fit.

And as seen in Isaiah 36 & 37 it was only because God, apparently chose to have mercy on Judah, and that for the sake of David (Isa 37:35) that He, at the last minute used Hezekiah’s prayer as a reason to have mercy on the entire kingdom (Isa 37:21ff).

And as seen in Isa 37:36 & in the SOP (GC 614.2) God sent an angel to kill these Assyrians.



This indirect notion is indicated in the Bible by the use of a Hiphil. Had a Piel stem been used here, this would have proven your point. Simply by God not quenching a desire for such evil by His Spirit, would have accomplished this. The same thing may have occurred with Saul if organically possible/present. As with the lying spirit sent to King Ahab, an evil spirit may have also been allowed and/or left unchecked to influence this wrong course with Absalom. EGW may not have had the full/visionary light on this and may just have made this comment in passing, as it were, based upon what she thought might have occurred here. But the Bible reveals that God could have Himself greenlighted a judgement-feasing agency, even if from the side of the adversary, as it probably would be for this tempting.



For all of the previous reasons I stated against your prime 7 (just restating them does not suddenly make them valid) and these added examples of yours here, I do not see that your claim is either Biblically sound, nor that it serves to overrule the many clear examples where both the SOP and the Bible say that God did an act of judgement Himself.