John: Tom, sometimes when God allows things to happen, He speaks as though He did it Himself, that's true.

But sometimes He does things Himself and speaks as though He did it Himself. Which is to be expected, isn't it.

Tom: I assume by "things" here, you mean bad things, like killing, maiming, destroying, inflicting with disease; things like this. Why would it be expected that God would do things like this?

How do we know sometimes He does things Himself? How do we know when inspiration is speaking of God doing that which He permits, and when it means God is Himself doing the "bad" thing.

John: In the case of the Flood -- if God didn't cause that to happen, who did?

Tom: Who caused Black Holes to happen? Who causes the stars to die?

John: Who else has the power to cause such a humongous worldwide catastrophe? Certainly not Satan or his angels. They can cause storms etc., but nothing like the Flood. And it didn't just sort of happen all by itself, at random.

Tom: Where does the power of Satan end? How would you know what is something beyond Satan's power, and what isn't?

"The Adventist Book Center has several very good books concerning the Noachan flood, from the SDA standpoint. And they are surprisingly scientific and well researched, amply able to stand up to evolutionary theories."

The books I have read about the flood point out that the flood began by water exploding from the depths of the ocean and rising to the atmosphere. A theory is that something like tectanic plate opened up and water went gushing up from the ocean to the atmosphere, which came back down to the earth as rain. Has anyone read something like this?

If satan has the power to do major things like the flood that the bible ascribes to God, would that mean that the only difference between the powers of God and satan is the creative power? Do we then have the situation of two "gods" waging war on earth? In contrast to a created being in rebellion using whatever propaganda means he can to bring as many others as possible with him in the rebellion?

/Thomas

It is interesting that when we view large scale destructive powers, we say that whoever can do it is God. Why do we link up destruction with God? Would man be "God" if he were to destroy the world with say several "neutron bombs"? Now if man is capable of destroying this world even more spectacularly, why do we think it strange that Satan should be capable to do so? Do we not consider that the only reason that man has not destroyed this world yet is because of the restraining influence of God's spirit.

The controversy is between good and evil; between life and death; between the eternal life that was revealed unto us in Christ and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil.

Dont forget Noa. Or do you see God keeping satan back for 120 years waiting for Noa to finnish the ark?

The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Every thought of man was "only evil" continually. It should be easy to comprehend how much work God had in restraining the tide of evil. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.

For 120 years more God strove with man to save him, and the record tells us that outside of Noah and his family, not even one heeded; not even the hired workers who helped build the ark.

Every thought of man was "only evil continually". With so much evil thought, how can we think that they would have gone on living just fine once the Lord ceased striving with man (withdrew his spirit)?

The controversy is between good and evil; between life and death; between the eternal life that was revealed unto us in Christ and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil.

If the contest of the Great Controversy were one of power, it would have been over in a moment. God is infinitely powerful; Satan's power is infintesimal in comparison.

However the controversy is not one of power, but one of character. Satan's method from the very beginning has been to invest God with his own character.

I've been asking for some time, without any answer yet, what principle should be used to determine whether God has done something attributed to Him by inspiration or not. A principle of asking how difficult the task is seems to have been suggested. If it's a task we think is too difficult for Satan to do, then it must have been God?

There's another possibility to God or Satan causing the flood. That is that God was restraining forces of nature to prevent the flood from occuring, and withdrew His restraint. It would make sense for inspiration to describe such an act of God as His causing the flood. It would certainly be something He had direct control over, if this were the case.

Regarding Satan fearing for his life, it makes sense to me that if Satan did something to cause the flood that God would hold him to the earth to experience the fury of his own making. Kind of ironic.

The whole question of Satan fearing for his life is an interesting one. Why would an angel be afraid of a flood?

Tom, have you considered the fact that EGW stated time and again that God caused the Flood, in modern language so plain that none need miss it?

Why would the fact that it is stated in modern language change anything? Isn't the fact the Bible says something sufficient?

My question is that there are times in the Bible which state that God did something. How do we know if it is speaking of something He permitted, or did Himself?

For example, consider the destruction of Jerusalem, or the final judgments before Christ's coming. The Bible says it is God who does these things, but the Spirit of Prophesy says God permits these things. Another example would be 2 Thess. 2 where it speaks of God's sending a strong delusion to those who have rejected the truth. According to the Spirit of Prophesy, God turns those who have rejected the truth over to the lies and deceptions they love.

So what is the principle? If the Spirit of Prophesy confirms that God did something, *then* we understand God did it? That is, if we have the statement in modern language, we can accept it?

I've been asking, for some time now (without any answers) what is the PRINCIPLE that we should use for determining whether we should understand if God is doing something which is attributed to Him, or if He is permitting said action.