Tom, this quote does not support your interpretation. It doesn’t even support your opinion. You could apply this principle to any anything, whether true or false. If a person is unable to back up a particular theory with inspired quotes, then do you think it would be smart or safe to advocate it publicly?


Well, considering the fact nearly all the world knows English, it is not all that difficult to believe Jesus will resurrect them with “one voice”. Do you really believe God is incapable of raising everyone speaking one voice?

Do you also reject the story in the Bible where God made everyone all of sudden speak in different languages? One minute everyone is speaking with one voice, and the next minute they are speaking many different languages. How do you explain it? Did God use force or compulsion? Did He violate their freedom of choice?

"With one voice" means "in full agreement."

If we were to take it to the EXTREME literal, it would mean that somehow only one voice in the crowd was speaking! Obviously, that is not the case. Even the best choir in the world will not sound like one voice.

I do not believe that "with one voice" necessarily means the words are the same, nor that they are spoken in the same cadence, rhythm, or timing...only that their minds are in complete agreement, and their message is the same.



Modern Example:

"With one voice, House OKs teen driving bill...SPRINGFIELD - Without a single dissenting vote, the Illinois House on Wednesday sent to the governor..."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You've got it, buddy. I definitely appreciate the effort you put forth to ensure your posts do not unnecessarily offend. I will try to do better in the future.


Tom, here’s what you wrote earlier: “I think your ideas regarding the GC passage contradict DA 764. I think your ideas are incorrect. I think the problem lies in your interpretation of the GC passage. I interpret it differently. In the way I interpret, it's in harmony with DA 764. That's one of the reasons I prefer my interpretation to yours. I see in the GC passage that you quoted from a description of a vision. Visions have elements which are symbolic and elements which are literal. We have to figure out which is which. I'm using these other passages to help me figure this out.”

From this I gather you believe GC 662-665 is a description of a vision. Do you also think she is attempting to share her interpretation of the vision? Or, is she leaving it up to the non-SDA reader to research her other books in order to decode and decipher it? I say non-SDA reader because of the fact the GC was written to non-SDA readers.


I addressed this point in my previous post, but I’ll speak more about it here, too. Again, here is what she wrote: “They come forth, a mighty host, numberless as the sands of the sea.” As you said, this expression is biblical. It is a Jewish expression. It is similar to the following passage: “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.”

Either it is true or it is a hyperbole. There is no reason why we cannot accept it at face value. When John wrote this it was true. The technology did not exist for one man in those days to number such a vast throng of people. I doubt it can be done today with all of our advancements. Think of what it would take for us today to count billions upon billions of people all by ourselves. You might be able to do it if everyone cooperated like they supposed to during a census count, and if you had a good computer.

But John wasn’t thinking of a computer when he said the great multitude was so numerous as to be impossible to count. Instead, he was thinking of the technology available to him, which indeed was inadequate to do the job. So, with this in mind, I have no trouble believing John literally meant it was impossible for one man to count them by himself.

So, again, which parts of the following excerpt from GC 662 are literal and which parts are symbolic? I've given my answers, do you agree with them? Please note that I've also made comments and asked questions.

1. At the close of the thousand years, Christ again returns to the earth. [Literal or Symbolic]

2. He is accompanied by the host of the redeemed and attended by a retinue of angels. [Literal or Symbolic]

3. As He descends in terrific majesty He bids the wicked dead arise to receive their doom. [Literal or Symbolic]

4. They come forth, a mighty host, numberless as the sands of the sea. [Literal or Symbolic] The expression “numberless as” does not mean it is impossible to count. Nor does it mean there are as many wicked raised as there are grains of sand. It simply means there are a lot of people that come forth.

5. What a contrast to those who were raised at the first resurrection! The righteous were clothed with immortal youth and beauty. The wicked bear the traces of disease and death. [Literal or Symbolic]

6. Every eye in that vast multitude is turned to behold the glory of the Son of God. [Literal or Symbolic] They literally see the glory of Christ without dying or desiring to die. Do you agree?

7. With one voice the wicked hosts exclaim: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" [Literal or Symbolic] I already know you disagree with me on this point. Can you prove it?

8. It is not love to Jesus that inspires this utterance. [Literal or Symbolic]

9. The force of truth urges the words from unwilling lips. [Literal or Symbolic] I’m pretty sure you disagree with me on this one, since you do not believe God employs force or compulsion. Also, please notice that the "truth" does not cause them to die nor does it cause them to desire death. I mention this point because you commented earlier that the truth will cause them to seek death. Right?

10. As the wicked went into their graves, so they come forth with the same enmity to Christ and the same spirit of rebellion. [Literal or Symbolic] I’m not sure if you agree with me on this one, since I’m not sure if you believe everyone who is lost is rebellious. What do you believe?

11. They are to have no new probation in which to remedy the defects of their past lives. Nothing would be gained by this. A lifetime of transgression has not softened their hearts. [Literal or Symbolic]

12. A second probation, were it given them, would be occupied as was the first in evading the requirements of God and exciting rebellion against Him. [Literal or Symbolic] Again, I’m not sure if you agree with me on this one for the same reason mentioned above.

Green Cochoa, yes, it is true we sometimes use the expression "with one voice" to mean "in full agreement". However, even in the example you cited they said the exact same thing - Yea. Not one of them said, Nay. So, as we can see, the expression "with one voice" can mean saying the same thing.

Nevertheless, do you agree with Tom that the following insights imply the wicked will die or desire to die the instant they are exposed to the truth and the glory of God?

GC 662
Every eye in that vast multitude is turned to behold the glory of the Son of God. With one voice the wicked hosts exclaim: "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord!" It is not love to Jesus that inspires this utterance. The force of truth urges the words from unwilling lips.

I simply meant the message was the same, but not necessarily the actual words. It doesn't concern me whether they all speak the same language or not. I don't believe that is at all a part of what Mrs. White is trying to say, though I certainly agree that in God's power, it could happen. It matters not. As for the wicked? They will not _want_ to die. They may wish to hide themselves from God, but I don't believe they are desirous of death. Why would they be taking up arms against the city? Nay, but they will be fighting for their lives.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My opinion is what the quote said, which spoke of the importance of using our reasoning powers and intellect.



The quote has to do with reasoning, so yes, it can be applied to anything, whether true or false. We should use our reasoning powers and intellect to analyze the meaning of a given statement, whether true or false.



Yes, that's possible. Certainly much of what Ellen White wrote she was unable to back up with inspired quotes (e.g., much of what she wrote about the fall of Lucifer, or the fall of man).

If the theory has to do with Scripture, of course one should be able to use Scripture to back up one's theory. However, it's not necessary for the theory itself to be in an inspired quote.



What she wrote in GC 541-543 is from the same book, intended for the same readers. Indeed, if one read the book in order, one would have already read what she wrote there, and one could use that to help understand what she wrote later in the book.



You say this is literal, but then qualify it in a way that it is not literal. The statement is true, but not literal. If it were literal, then there would be as many wicked as there are grains of sand, which there aren't.

I think I already commented on this, didn't I?

Regarding proving that not everyone will speak English, simply common sense dictates that it is not a reasonable interpretation that everyone will speak English. It's difficult for me to comprehend that you would even consider this as a possibility, or think that Ellen White could possibly have had this in mind. I can just imagine if someone were to ridicule what she wrote here on the basis that not everybody will speak English, that her response would be similar to that in EW 92, that she never intended that what she wrote be interpreted in that way any more than John intended that he be understood as believing that there are dragons in heaven.



I didn't say this, MM. I would like to ask you, yet again, to please present my ideas with my own words, or at least express my meaning accurately. Here you've added the words "the instant" which I've never said, not even once, and which are not to be found in inspiration.

Here's what I've said regarding this:



The same thing which gives life to the righteous will slay the wicked. What is the light of the glory of God? The glory of God is His character.



Given that the glory of God is His character, and the light of the glory of God gives life to the righteous, how should we understand this phrase? Is not Jesus Christ the life of the righteous? Is it not He who reveals the character of God? Then is it not clear that Jesus Christ is the light of the glory of God?

Now how do the wicked respond to the revelation of the truth? In the GC passage quoted, it says that Christ is uplifted, and by one glance of Christ the wicked's true condition is made known (they become aware of every sin, every place on their path where they turned, etc.) In GC 542, 3 we read:



This brings out how the wicked do not wish to be in heaven. DA 764 gives us more information:



So when we put this altogether we see that:

a.The wicked do not wish to be in heaven (their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves).
b.They long to flee from God, from heaven.
c.They love (choose) death.
d.They are destroyed as a result of their own decisions, as opposed to by the power of God.
e.Their destruction comes as a result of the harm they have caused to their own character, which causes God to be to them a consuming fire.

How did EGW know all this? From the visions/dreams she was given by God, and from her own understanding of things, based on her life experience, the teaching of the Holy Spirit, her study of the Scriptures, and so forth.

It seems likely to me that all of these accounts (DA 108, DA 764, GC 543, the latter GC passage) are all based on the same vision. In one account of the vision, towards the end of the GC, she presents a view which is closer to what she actually saw. In the other passages she interprets what she saw, on the basis of her understanding of Scripture, God's character, etc., and we get the comments from DA 108, DA 764, and GC 541-543.

So what I've tried to do is to put these things together in a way that makes sense, so that all four descriptions harmonize.

For example, it seems likely to me that EGW saw fire coming down from heaven to destroy the wicked, and wrote that in the passage from GC towards the end of the book. However, in all the other descriptions of this same event, she describes God as a consuming fire. She doesn't talk about a literal fire anywhere. She says the destruction of the wicked is not due to an arbitrary act of power of God, which would describe God's engulfing them with literal fire, but rather a result of their own choice, describing the result of ruining their characters so that God Himself is to them a consuming fire.

At any rate, I don't see any way of harmonizing the idea that God engulfs the wicked with literal fire with the idea that the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked. Obviously literal fire does not give life to the righteous. God gives life. Is He represented as fire in Scripture? Yes, He is. Is He literal fire? No.

But I asked you to post a quote to support your theory, which you haven’t done yet. Do you really believe God is incapable of raising everyone speaking the same language? Doesn’t the incident at the tower of Babel prove God is able to cause people to speak different languages?


Those pages are not talking about the same scene described on pages 662-665. She says they are exposed to the truth and to the glory of God without dying or desiring death. It couldn’t be worded more plainly.


Does something have to make sense to you before you are willing to accept it? How far are you willing to take this idea? What about Jonah? Does it sound reasonable to believe he survived 72 hours in the belly of a fish? What about Lazarus? Is it reasonable to believe he came to life after being dead for four days? What about the tower of Babel? Is it reasonable to believe God made them speak different languages?


GC 622-665 is not talking about the wicked being in heaven or not wanting to be in heaven. They are on earth. They are exposed to the truth and to the glory of God without dying or without desiring death. Instead, they are motivated to take the New Jerusalem by force. They are about to attack the city when once again the glory of God engulfs them - without causing them to die or to desire death. God rains fire from above and raises fire from below. In this fiery environment the wicked turn upon one another with murderous intentions. They eventually die.

I did. I produced the quote on using reasoning and intellect.



I didn't argue this.



That God has the physical power to cause everyone to speak English is not the issue. The point is, it doesn't make any sense to interpret the passage literally. I also quoted this:



I think, if Ellen White were alive, she would be shocked at the thought that someone was interpreting her statement that the wicked would with one voice proclaim "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" meant she thought God would cause everyone in the resurrection to speak English.

It's clear to me that GC 662-665, DA 764, and GC 541-543 are all dealing with the subject of the destruction of the wicked. For example, from the GC 541-543 passage:



Isn't it clear this is dealing with the judgment of the unrighteous?



I don't understand how you could read GC 541-543, or DA 764, and not understand that this is dealing with the judgment of the wicked. I've already quoted from GC 541 regarding this. From DA 764:



Isn't it clear that this is dealing with the thing as GC 622-625?

I skipped this inadvertently.

The Scriptures tell us that we should be able to give a reason for the hope that is within us. Ellen White urges us to use sound arguments, that will bear close examination. This requires the use of reason. If we read something, and come up with some interpretation which we find unreasonable, then we must reject our interpretation, or change our minds regarding what causes us to perceive our interpretation as unreasonable.

I believe that God created all things, including this earth in 6 days. So I have no doubt that God has the power to do whatever He wants. So, for example, that God raised Lazarus makes perfect sense to me, as anyone with the power and ability to create the Universe would have the power and ability to raise the dead.

Regarding everyone raised speaking English, it seems to me that it doesn't take much intelligence to recognize that the reason that Ellen White wrote that the wicked would say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" was simply because she herself spoke English, and thus wrote the phrase in English, not because she had any idea that those raised would all speak English. Similarly, if her native language had been some other language than English, say Portuguese, she would have written "Bendito Aquele que vem no nome do Senhor!" which would have no more implied that all will speak Portuguese than her writing it the way she did implies they will all speak English.