In my oppinion, what Moses tried to say and what the COI heard is more important for understanding the meaning of a text Moses did write than what it might mean at face value for you or me. You would understand this better Mike, if you knew more than one language and ever tried to accurately translate the meaning from English to the other language.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. Anytime we read Scripture, we have to interpret it. I'll give you a couple of examples where you are not accepting the Bible testimony at face-value to drive the point home.



Taking this at face value, the covenant at Sinai leads to bondage. Here's another:



Taking this at face value, the old covenant is not in force today.

You have different ideas regarding these verses, because you believe that the Old Covenant does not lead into bondage, and you don't believe that it "decayeth" or "waxeth old."

Now I wish to make clear that I don't disagree with your wanting to interpret these verses in a way that makes sense to you. You are trying to fit them within your paradigm, and make the fit with what you understand other inspired texts are saying. That's fine to do, and we all do that. But, while it's fine to do that, you should recognize that in so doing, you are not simply taking the Bible texts at face value.

You don't even take the Spirit of Prophecy texts at face value (you interpret them the same way you do Scripture, which interpretation I am not faulting), and she wrote in English, as an American, in a culture not so far removed from our own, as opposed to Moses, whose culture and language is far removed from our own.

If you want an example where you don't take EGW at face value, there's quite a few I could give, but I'll just give one. She writes that God offered to restore Lucifer to his position if he would confess his sin. You have a theory that Lucifer did not sin until after this point in time, so you wrote that "sin" cannot mean what we ordinarily understand it to mean. You stated the same thing about "repent" and "pardon." You're obviously not taking EGW's statements at face value, if you have to redefine common ordinary English words like "sin," "repent," and "pardon."

Again, my point is not against your attempts to interpret Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy (I'm not at all getting at the fact that I disagree with these particular interpretations), but with your apparent idea that you are take Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy at face value, whereas you think Thomas and I don't, because we bring out the importance of taking into account the culture, language of the time, and the context of the text.

Tom, thank you for sharing the quotes you posted above. Amen. However, how do I reconcile them with what you posted earlier - "God veils His glory, and prevents the natural result of sin to occur, which is death."

RE: taking the Bible stories at face value. Was anything lost when Exodus 33:18-23 was translated in English? In other words, does this passage originally mean something totally different than what it means in English?

Exodus
33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory.
33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

TV: You would understand this better Mike, if you knew more than one language and ever tried to accurately translate the meaning from English to the other language.

MM: So, true. In seminary we studied the translation of the Hebrew expression, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness". In certain cultures the throat, instead of the heart, is considered the seat of emotions. The translators incorporated this metaphor. So, the above reads, For with the throat we believe unto righteousness.

I'm not seeing that there's anything to reconcile. It seems to me the same thing is being said that I've been saying all along. E.g.

"The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

Which leads me right back to where I started - If the undiluted, unveiled glory of God must be present in order for sinners to suffer and die the second death, doesn't that imply that the undiluted, unveiled glory of God must be present in order for sinners to suffer and die and second death?

If so, then sin, in and of itself, is not enough to cause sinners to suffer and die the second death, which is an observation you seem to vehemently oppose. I am missing something?

True, there are no major changes in meaning from plain to contextualized in this particular case as far as I am aware.

Then you have the example of the culture where noone has ever seen a sheep, but all are pig-herders. Some translate that as Jesus being the pig slain from the foundation of the world. Not everybody is entierly comfortable with that.

I guess not. Which translation substitutes pig for lamb?