HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Knowreason, Jeff Wickham, michaeljav, Nrothe, Theophilus
1300 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics8,826
Posts189,939
Members1,300
Most Online5,164
Feb 19th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
APL 43
Rick H 40
kland 17
Daryl 13
February
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Member Spotlight
Green Cochoa
Green Cochoa
The Orient
Posts: 6,792
Joined: April 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
11 registered members (His child, Charity, dedication, Daryl, jackson, ProdigalOne, 5 invisible), 3,375 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 81 of 105 1 2 79 80 81 82 83 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #133002
04/27/11 11:45 PM
04/27/11 11:45 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Post #132121 (March 25, 2011)
NJK: Indeed if they had just heeded Christ counsel to ‘pay Caesar what belongs to him’, this whole catastrophe would probably have been averted.

Tom: A good insight.

NJK: Promotion: That was taken from my book on the 70 Weeks.


Just a slight, but discussion-significant specification to a statement that I had made variously in this thread, having recently actually looked into that part of my manuscript on the Seventy Weeks and recollecting exactly what I had written along with further studies:

The issue of the Jews withholding their and the cause of their war with the Romans was actually a thematically related converse issue. It was rather that “the High Priest Eleazar had suddenly decided that the Jews should not receive any gift or sacrifice for any foreigner and persuaded those in the Temple services to go along with this policy. Josephus adds that “this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account. (Josephus, War of the Jews, 2:17.2 [#409])”. The ‘converse relation’ here was that it was harmless to continue to ‘offer this thing belonging to Caesar to Caesar and (distinctly) the things of God to God’ (Matt 22:21).

Also related to this, in terms of the poll-tax, (which I had mistakenly conflated in my previous statements in this thread) the remote relation is that the Jewish Zealot movement, which as Josephus states, pointedly led to this militaristic confrontation with the Romans, origniated from the time when some Jews, later called Zealots, decided not to pay the poll(= census)-tax (cf. Acts 5:37 & Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1.1[#4-#9]; 18:2.6[#23-#25]; 20:5.2 [#102]; War, 2:8.1 [#118]; 2:17.8 [#433-#440]).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133003
04/27/11 11:55 PM
04/27/11 11:55 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Quote:
T: This doesn't contradict what Ellen White wrote. Even though there were things Jesus Christ did not say to the disciples, it does not follow that He didn't reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God. I can't think of why you would think that this would follow. There's no logical dependency here. This should be easy to see. All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere. And indeed, in regards to the context of the statement, what Jesus Christ could not reveal to the disciples by words, which they could not bear, *was* revealed to them by Christ when He died on the cross.

M: “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” “Can know” refers to our limited ability to comprehend truth.

T: The statement says that whatever man is able to know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ.

M: Therefore, Jesus only revealed what we “need to know” to appreciate the love of God, experience rebirth, and inherit eternal life.

T: What she said is that "all" (not "only") that we a)need to know OR b)are able to know, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ. It wasn't a limiting statement, as "only" would make it, but a non-limiting statement. You're basically reversing what she said.

M: Fortunately for us, by the grace of God, we “can know,” that is, we are capable of comprehending, what we “need to know.”

T: Whatever we are capable of knowing is what Jesus Christ revealed.

M: Nevertheless, engrained prejudices, preconceived opinions, widespread misconceptions, and time and circumstances did not permit Jesus to explain and/or demonstrate everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: This is another way of stating something different than the EGW statement.

M: The idea that Jesus revealed everything there is to know about God . . .

T: This part is OK.

M: . . . and that we are just too dense and dimwitted to discern it contradicts what Jesus Himself said.

T: This you just made up. The statement doesn't say anything like this or about this.

M:“Needs to know” makes it clear it doesn’t include everything there is to know about God.


EGW started out by saying that all that man needs to know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son, and had she only written that, one might have been possible to misunderstand what she wrote along the lines you are suggesting, but she clarified her thought, by adding "or can know," making it clear that she was not limiting her thought merely to what needs to be known.

Quote:
M: More on this point at the end of this post.

T: Ok. You didn't deal with the point of logic I brought up. That is, this: “All that needs to be the case for Ellen White's statement to be true, and Jesus' as well, is that the things which Jesus refrained from telling the disciples were referring to aspects of God's character which Jesus Christ had revealed (or would reveal) elsewhere.

M:“Elsewhere” refers to the OT and the NT (excluding the Gospels).


No, this wouldn't make sense given the logical point being made. "Elsewhere" in context must refer to Christ's earthly mission.

Quote:
M: By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive?

T: This question doesn't make sense to me.

M: Inspiration makes it clear the fire that burned N&A alive blazed out from the presence of God in the most holy place. In order for His enemies to do it, they would have had to been inside the most holy place when they employed fire to burn N&A alive. Well, come to think of it, I suppose it’s possible they could have figured out a way to make fire blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place without having to be physically inside the most holy place. Also, what kind of fire did God’s enemies use?

T: GC 35-37 isn't limited to actions of God's enemies. There are a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, from which God protects us.

M: While we’re at it, who were His enemies?

T: Those who hate God are God's enemies (but God is still their friend).

M: I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

M:Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty?


No, I'm asking you to please quote something I've said, because I don't understand where you're getting your ideas from. That isn't clear to you?

Quote:
It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.


Here's our conversation:

Quote:
M: I’m sorry it wasn’t clear I was referring specifically to the enemies of God who you say caused fire to blaze out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive.

T: Why do you think I said this?

M: Were these particular enemies evil angels? If not, who were they?

T: Please quote something I've said. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from.

Are you refusing to address questions relating to N&A and the two bands of fifty? It was Ellen who said so. You agreed with her.


You're suggesting that Ellen White said these particular enemies were evil agents?

Quote:
T: We're not capable in any state of knowing everything there is to know about God. Can we be glad to agree on this point as well? Regarding the second point, when you say, "'all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son' do not mean the same thing," you mean the same thing as "it is not possible for man to know everything about God?" In which case you're echoing what I said? Basically you asked a question implying these were related, and I said these are independent things, so that your question didn't really make sense. You're saying you agree with me on this point? If so, I'm glad we agree too.

M:I said I’m glad we agree “we are incapable, in our sinful state, of knowing everything there is to know about God” and “all that man needs to know, or can know, of God was NOT revealed in the life and character of His son" do not mean the same thing.


This doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, "I'm glad we agree that chocolate bananas and yellow cars aren't the same thing."

Quote:
M: She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to disagree.

T: No, she said the opposite. Of course I disagree, because your assertion is blatantly false. First of all, nowhere in the quotes you provided did she say, "Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh." This is simply misstating what she said! Secondly, she actually did say, "All that man needs to know or can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." You disagree with this, which is fine, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't give you the right to assert that *she* disagreed with what she said!

M: Perhaps you overlooked the following: “He could not open to them the truths He longed to unfold. . . He had left unsaid many things that could not be comprehended by the disciples.”

T: I've already explained why this doesn't contradict what she said.

M: “He compassionately promised that the Holy Spirit” would introduce and explain the things Jesus did not, could not, reveal to them. As explained above, Jesus could only share with them truths they were capable of comprehending, truths they “needed to know” to experience rebirth.

T: You keep changing things that were said. She didn't say "to experience rebirth" but simply "all that man needs to know, or can know." At any rate, as I previously explained, the fact that there were things which Jesus could not reveal to them at that time does not imply that all that man can know of God was not revealed by Jesus Christ. This isn't a valid argument.

M: Obviously this means Jesus did not, could not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.

T: No, it doesn't mean this! Your assertion would only be true if the things which Jesus Christ couldn't tell them were things about God's character which He did not reveal elsewhere.

M: This is not to say, however, Jesus hasn’t revealed everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: Right! Jesus, during his earthly mission, revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.

M: When we take the Bible as a whole, rather than excluding the OT and NT, that is, rather than restricting our view of God to the four Gospels, we find that Jesus does indeed reveal everything there is to know about the character and kingdom of God.

T: This is your opinion, but not what Ellen White wrote. Looking at the context of her statement, it is clear that she is speaking of Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. I disagree with the idea that to learn of God we should supplement what Jesus Christ taught with what other sources teach us, and then add them together to get a full or true or complete picture. I believe Jesus Christ *is* the full/complete/picture of God's character, and that it is His revelation only which enables us to rightly understand other lesser revelations of God. I think this is a chief disagreement we have. I see Jesus Christ in human flesh as superior to all other revelations of God.

M:Please refer to the many passages I posted earlier (omitted by you). As a whole they make clear the point.


Ellen White wrote that all that man needs to know of God, or can know of Him, was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh. Somehow you've construed this to mean:

Quote:
She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh.


Just to be clear, here's what she said word for word:

Quote:
Christ's Revelation of God (Section title in book)

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}

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18. {8T 286.2}

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of men, and yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth--in the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from sin. {8T 286.3}

Tender, compassionate, sympathetic, ever considerate of others, He represented the character of God, and was constantly engaged in service for God and man. {8T 286.4}


Please explain to me how this can mean that NOT every thing man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, when He "took humanity upon Him."


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Mountain Man] #133004
04/28/11 12:33 AM
04/28/11 12:33 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
Your view that the Bible shows God doing things that are only permitted is not tenable, as I see that God also does what he directly allows. (E.g, the ‘serpents in the wilderness’)


God presents Himself as doing that which He directly allows, so seeing Him as doing so is OK. It should be clear that He's not actually doing these things, however.

Quote:
Also the other examples you have cited thus far (Saul, Destruction of Jerusalem) do not check out.


Sure they do. The Scripture says that "God killed Saul," although he took his own life. Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem:

Quote:
Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them (GC 35)


This is exactly the point I've been making. Indeed, this is where I got the idea from.

Quote:
The former here was demonstrated above, the latter in that Christ made His predictive parable statements stating a direct implication of God. And historically, great mercy was involved in that 70 A.D. judgement which automatically showed that God did not enitrely leave it up to the control of Satan, if he had any control in it at all. As I have stated, this is because the end of the world would not come to occur then as it could have. Also EGW application of that second method of destruction here does not check out on my levels and points. I thus have not seen that those inserted EGW comments/applications in the GC account, pp. 35-37, to be validly done.


Ok, if you disagree with Ellen White, that's your prerogative.

Quote:
You are also, from my exegetical methodology perspective, wrongly using a handful of supposed, and actually not conclusive examples, to define all other examples.


From the Spirit of Prophecy, I used, not just any example, but the example of which there is the most detail. She makes the same applications to the French Revolution. I could present some of her statements regarding this event as well.

Quote:
That is not proper exegesis.


If we're dealing with a subject, and an author devotes many pages to the subject, and the example the author gives is the one of which (s)he supplies the most detail, that's perfectly proper.

Quote:
The whole foundation of your view is not solid to me for you to be going ahead and building a high rise building on it.


The foundation of the view is Jesus Christ. The purpose of His mission was the revelation of God. He is the rock upon which high rise buildings may be safely built.

Quote:
So, quite seriously speaking, I see not valid, even viable Biblical, even SOP basis for your ‘wholesale, indirect Divine judgements’ view.


You rejected what the SOP said, so you *did* see the SOP basis for what I was saying. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to reject it.

Quote:
...How does this come to be disrespectful to/of God. It’s not even remotely true and is indeed not aimed at all at God! That statement is only speaking of what your view is doing to the Godhead. So the equivocating attempt here is completely spurious and diversionary. Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view. And, as with all other views where God is so slighted, this all stems from, factually speaking, poor exegesis and shoddy/unscientific exegetical methods.


First of all, my view doesn't do this. This is a misunderstanding on your part. You could make clear that your understanding is that my view would have the Godhead be such and such, and that would be better (less disrespectful), but, in any context, IMO it's not good to refer to God as you did.

Also, you claim:

Quote:
Indeed I wrote this in order to end this optional/backseat, non-authoritative treatment of the Godhead done from your view.


Your statement here is both naive and ridiculous. If I say to you that your view of the Godhead (put in something disrespectful here, that ridicules your position, and says something unkind about God), your reaction would simply be to become upset. It wouldn't cause you in any way to want you to change your view.

Surely you can see this.

Name-calling and insults just provokes the party you are insulting to want to do the same thing to you.

Quote:
As I see it, you have quite slyly tried to deal with anything and everything else that was not pointedly relevant to the topical substance of this discussion, indeed many times, as it can easily be seen, “leap frogging” substantive points to deal instead with the peripheral. The ironic things is that if you had chosen to deal with the substantive, including engaging exegesis, these side issues would not even have become a factor. You can easily look over this discussion and causally see where and why these side/peripheral issues came to be.


Again, I repeat, I am responding to what *you write*. If you wish to partake of something substantive, than write something substantive! If you choose to focus on the peripheral, and I respond to that, don't blame me for dealing with the peripheral. Write something that's not peripheral, but substantive, so that when I respond to that, I'm also dealing with something substantive.

Quote:
Tom: The organic relationship between sin and death is dealing with the second death. Before the resurrection, there's bound to be much injustice, because we live in a world where Satan has a great deal of sway.

NJK:So then, according to your specification here, there should not be the objection of yours to my point on my God instituted capital punishment, wars, divine judgements which all bring about this “First death”!?


No, this doesn't logically follow. You should be able to see that. If you don't, I'll point out why.

Quote:
Yet from the very start, and throughout this discussion, up to this answer here, you were stating this as the main objection to my view, indeed suddenly ‘insisting’ that my initial response in this thread come to involve this “Second Death”.


No, this isn't the case. There are different issues being discussed here.

The context of my first making the comment that sin and death are organically related, as I recall, was in reference to the Tree of Life discussion. I asserted that man dies (the second death) because of sin, and you said it's because he is denied access to the Tree of Life.

The other discussion, in regards to God's use of violence, I have been meeting with arguments in regards to God's character, not that sin and death are organically related. I've been consistent in how I've been dealing with these themes.

Quote:
By the way, and as I said before, I do not see anything different between the first and second death in regards to sin.


That doesn't mean others don't. In particular, I do, and I have been consistently dealing with these subjects accordingly.

Quote:
In fact God also supernaturally acts to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings.


I'm very sorry you see God in this way.

The following is from DA 764:

Quote:
This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe.


This says over and over again that it is NOT God who is causing these things to occur. For example:

Quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life.


How could it be more clearly stated that this is an action on the part of the wicked?

Again:

Quote:
By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.


This is clearly not God acting supernaturally "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings."

That you perceive of God as "also" 'acting supernaturally' "to make the Second Death involved full and prolonged sufferings," is distressing. Jesus came for the purpose of revealing the Father. He said, 'When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.' Do you perceive Jesus Christ as 'acting supernaturally to cause' (whatever) "involved full and prolonged sufferings'?

There was an incident where Jesus Christ was urged to destroy His enemies by calling down fire from heaven to destroy them. He responded to those so urging Him that they knew not of what spirit they were. He explained that He came not to destroy, but to save.

This is the wonderful character of God! It's not a way that God sometimes is, but other times acting supernaturally to impose full and prolonged suffering. No, no! God is not cruel in any way, ever. Not even at the judgment.

Quote:
Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to heaven and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love, every countenance beaming with joy, enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb, and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise?

Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb? No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire.

They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God. (GC 542)


God doesn't impose full and prolonged suffering upon the wicked, but their own actions cause their suffering. They form characters which cause them to suffer simply by having anything at all to do with God. He doesn't have to do anything to make them suffer. They suffer because of what they have done.

Note:

Quote:
A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire.


What causes them suffering? Purity, holiness, and peace! That should make it clear that the problem is sin. How could purity, holiness and peace be "torture" to a person who wasn't wrecked by sin?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133005
04/28/11 01:04 AM
04/28/11 01:04 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
-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.


This is a run-on sentence. It should be obvious in writing such a sentence that this is happening. An inner voice should go off, saying, "I need to stop and start a new sentence!"

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


It's not a side show issue. Writing as you do makes it very difficult to understand what you're saying, so much so that some, for this very reason alone, choose not to interact with you.

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


This has something to do with run on sentences?

Quote:
*My protracted sentences mainly come from the way in which I am responding to certain posts.


No, it doesn't. It has to do with how you think. You write the way you think, and the way you think is unclear, so this comes across in your writing.

Quote:
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.


It's not just cleaning/polishing the outside of a cup, but the inside. It's making what's in the cup palatable. Just look at the sentence I'm responding to, for example. It's over 50 words long.

If you get very few requests, it's because the audience is very small.

Quote:
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.


I'll agree that at times kland can be somewhat difficult to understand, but not in any way comparable to you. kland's "problem," if anything, is that he's too terse. But that's an easy problem to deal with, as one can just ask him to explain in more detail. You're extremely detailed, but unclear at the same time. There are many words, but little understandable content. And when people make suggestions to you (similar to a request to kland to explain in more detail), rather than complying (as kland would), you refuse.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133006
04/28/11 01:18 AM
04/28/11 01:18 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
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.


What? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Perhaps shorter sentences would help.

Quote:
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.


You're not saying anything helpful here.

Quote:
And after such an elaborate intervention for kland’s view which he did not bother to defend, what makes you think that your right.


I have no idea what you're referring here. Quoting something would help.

Quote:
Perhaps kland realized that it was a moot point following my provided exegetical element.


Maybe he didn't understand what you were saying. It's not easy.

Quote:
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”.)


If you're intent on seeing God as acting violently, it's certainly possible to subject that point of view on any incident in Scripture. Indeed, you've done so on a number of occasions.

We're on opposite ends of the spectrum here. I'm intent on seeing God not acting violently, and my reason for so doing is the revelation of Jesus Christ. I see, revealed in Christ, a certain picture of God. Given this picture, I see that certain statements, if understood a certain way, do not fit. So I look for another way to understand the statements, which harmonizes with the picture of God that Jesus Christ revealed.

I expect this is the same for kland as well.

Many others have seen the same thing; that Jesus Christ is *the* revelation of God, the key to understanding God.

Now why you take the other perspective, wanting to see God as acting directly to do something violent (like making serpents feel threatened so that they will attack) is a bit puzzling. This would seem to be as diametrically opposed to what Christ revealed as possible.

We have, on the one hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire on the part of some to understand this statement in a way that would harmonize with Jesus Christ's revelation of God.
3.An actual statement from an inspired writer that the serpents were there the whole time, that God did not sent them, but withdrew His protection from the Israelites.

On the other hand:

1.A statement saying that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites.
2.A desire to see God as wanting to cause suffering on the Israelites.
3.A questioning of an inspired statement because it does agree with 2.

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


Which post? Where in the post? Why not just quote the comment?

Quote:
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.


This sentence doesn't make sense. "that they being to be paramount" doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
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.


I would be very pleased if you wrote something substantive.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133009
04/28/11 03:45 AM
04/28/11 03:45 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

----
“Save Trees”???? Don’t buy printed Bible to “save trees” here and/or have the ones you have recycled, or sent to a poor country since you have (presumably) ready access to at least the Bible on the Internet!! I am not preventing you from looking up my references on a Bible software or the internet!?! Instead of quibbling for spurious rationales here, do yourself a favor and jsut drop that futile attempt for an issue here.

And don`t mistake me for a tree-hugger, I am to save lives and not firstly trees. As an easily naturally renewable resource, trees are not in daner of extinction. If you all would use this falsely supposed ‘saved, cumulative time’ to work to save the lives of aborted infants, as the NJK Project plans, I would consider your proposition as collectively beneficial. Just taking the time to respond to couple of supposed supporting examples to your view, which actually would not even affect the majority of opposite examples, as proper exegetical methods require, it increasingly being deemed as not worthwhile and time wasting by me. Perhaps it will help other people than you to see that actually already black-on-white clear Biblical light on this issue.

(And my NJK Project plan to ‘be more efficient in regards to publishing’ is to provide an ebook/“i-Pad”-type device to NJK Citizens (see here) and in the NJK Economy, they won’t cost, or “need to cost” $500+).
----

Quote:
NJK: 1 Chron 10:14 uses a Hiphil tense to say “killed”, meaning that God’s killing action would be ‘indirect and mediated’. So by God not doing anything to protect Saul’s life in that war, as he normatively did when any Israelite went out to fight, and then with Saul being captured and about to be put to death, before he pre-empted this and did it himself, there, exegetically is no contradiction here. 1 Chron 10:14 already was indicating that this would be done through an indirect and mediated action of God.

Tom: 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:

Originally Posted By: Bible Versions

therefore he slew him KJV
therefore He killed him NKJV
therefore He killed him NASB
He putteth him to death YLT
por esta causa lo mató Reina-Valera Antigua
alors l'Éternel le fit mourir Louis Segond
pelo que ele o matou João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada
per questo il Signore lo fece morire Conferenza Episcopale Italiana


That is what the Hebrew Grammatical identification states and, more precisely here, what the Syntax intends to convey. For (presumably) reasons/preferences of fluency these notions are not woodenly expresses in mainstream Bible versions. People complained about the begats in the KJV, well they would complain about all of the e.g.,: “caused to” (Hiphil) and “made to” (Piel) in these verbs were rendered as they were literally meant to. The scholarship attempt to try to express this nuance by using different words in English actually has done injury to this Hebrew Language element as it can be easily seen by the fact that the Hebrew tenses, depending on the context in which they are found, actually confusedly need to use those intended distinct English words.

(Though I am fluent in French and conversant/functional in Spanish, I think we could stick to the major English version, (the NIV, RSV/NRSV, JB/NJB should also be consulted cited, though I do not see version comparison as being determinative since the underlying syntax is not always properly rendered.)

The NJB (New Jerusalem Bible (hint hint) accurately has: “He had not consulted Yahweh, who therefore caused his death”

Indeed OT Hebrew Textbooks (as well as NT Greek ones) usually makes numerous Scriptural citations where they rendered texts in ways that are not found in any Bible version. (E.g, Waltke and O’Connor’s work (IBHS) has over 4100 Scriptural references, most of these being of this unique and more precise rendition kind.

Quote:
Tom: Regarding hiphil:

Quote:
One of the binyanim or forms of Hebrew verbs. Often the hiphil has a causative meaning e.g. "to make someone do something"

www.bible.gen.nz/amos/glossary/hiphil.htm


Quote:
According to Jenni, the Piel signifies "to bring about a state," and the Hiphil, to cause an event.

(An Introduction to biblical Hebrew syntax, by Bruce K. Waltke, Michael Patrick O'Connor)


What’s your page number for the IBHS citation here??

Quote:
B) Hiphil

1) Hiphil usually expresses the "causative" action of Qal -

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/hebrew_grammar.htm

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


(Just a note, I personally trust the quite comprehensive and more recent work of IBHS over other printed grammars, and especially over internet sources.)

These are indeed rightly emphasizing the causative notion contained in the Hiphil. (Perhaps you do not fully understand the grammatical/syntactical implications here.) As further explained in IBHS, (which can be accessed in Google Books) this “causation” is quite distinctly in action than the Piel or the Qal, among others tenses. Indeed as expressed in IBHS, 355:

Originally Posted By: IBHS 355
An English verb which can be intrinsically causative, such as ‘to cook,’ avoids the extra baggage of the causation auxiliary construction. It thus comes closer to the morphological causation forms of Hebrew. Roughly stated, it is our proposal that the verb ‘cooked’ in the sentence ‘John cooked the cabbage’ in the sense ‘John made the cabbage cooked’ would be rendered in Hebrew by the Piel, and in the sense ‘John caused the cabbage to cook’ by the Hiphil. Piel tends to signify causation with a patiency nuance, and Hiphil causation notion with an agency nuance. The two types of causation forms differ from one another with reference to the status of the subject being acted upon by the main verb, that is, the voice associated with the undersubject or secondary subject.


Piel - patiency nuance = “The semantic role of an entity that is not the agent but is directly involved in or affected by the happening denoted by the verb in the clause”

Hiphil - agency nuance - The semantic role of the animate entity that instigates or causes the happening denoted by the verb in the clause. How a result is obtained or an end is achieved

However, more than just the piel is involved when direct action is intended by the subject in regards to the verb “to kill” (#04191). The Hebrew Polel form (derived from the Piel) is used. Indeed with a notion here of pointed aim and/with endeavor, using a “special energy”, it thus speaks of ‘actively and directly putting someone to death’ (Jud 9:54; 1 Sam 14:13; 17:51; Psa 34:22; 109:16); indeed in relation to Saul himself (2 Sam 1:9, 10, 16), and also when God is to directly do it (Jer 20:17). (cf. GKC (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar) 55c:

Originally Posted By: GKC 55c
Po’el proper (as distinguished from the corresponding conjugations of verbs ע״ע § 67 l and ע״וּ § 72 m, which take the place of the ordinary causative Piʿē) expresses an aim or endeavour to perform the action, especially with hostile intent, and is hence called, by Ewald, the stem expressing aim (Zielstamm), endeavour (Suche-stamm) or attack (Angriffs-stamm); cf. the examples given above from Jb 9:15, Ps 101:5, and עוֹיֵן 1 S 18:9 Qerê (probably for מְעוֹיֵן, cf. § 52 s; § 55 f: seeking to cast an evil eye).


Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


The DA account of Christ’s incontrovertible use of physical force to twice clear/cleanse the Temple moreoverly, clearly indicate to me what was really going on here. Christ was indeed righteously indignant. That fact cannot be futilely excised/ignored from the Bible and SOP. The fig tree could be passed off as an acted parable, however the surprised reaction of the disciples shows that this was also not within the normative action/conduct of Christ. However it is the intrinsic part of God’s Ministry of judgement/Wrath and as usually, it is always for a greater good and not out of any baseless/reactionary vindictiveness.

Quote:
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.


There is nothing “unfortunate” about ‘Righteous Indignation for a greater good’. You are the one who cannot understand this just aspect of God’s Character. I personally thank God for this judicious, even forceful, intervention especially when it so does confront the abuses of people in positions of power/leadership, especially (religious) leadership in His People/Church. (Cf. Rev 6:9, 10) And I aim to be a 100% follower of Christ. It was because it was not Christ’s mandate then to judge Israel, but to first instruct/redress them and complete the plan of salvation (cf. Luke 49, 50) that more of these deserved acts of judgement were not done.

And in regards to Christ’s expressed ‘great wish’ in Luke 12:49, if he indeed had not ‘greatly constrained himself’ but done that act of bringing about Hell Fire on the earth, that would have trumped all of the “meted” actions of judgements by God in the OT put together, including the Flood destruction.

Quote:
NJK: Manifestly if Simon, the Pharisee had immediately proceeded to audibly condemn Christ with these blind thoughts, he would been met/treated as Christ usually dealt with those Jewish leaders,

Tom: 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.


Cite a couple of Examples. I rather see that he spoke veiledly to them from the start (e.g., John 2:19ff & 3:3ff), indeed, as already stated, ‘rousing their hatred’ (DA 167.2) in the first act of His ministry in the Clearing/Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13ff).

Quote:
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.


Christ made himself meet with this opposition right from the start by himself initiating the confrontation in the Temple. The veiled statements also started right then. Barring an actual substantiation here, your view here would actually be wishful thinking.

Originally Posted By: Tom
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 Biblical Truth is that Jesus wanted to judge them from the start. You don’t awake love by doing actions that arouse hatred. Further Biblically speaking that was all in line with his “designs”to bring about deserved judgement on this leaders who should have known and done better, as they were pretentious purporting.

(For some reason you think that just claiming “love” resolves everything. At best this was tough love manifested by Christ, nonetheless “tough love” explanatorily seeks to avoid sustained hatred against the disciplinary actions taken, and perhaps this was only done in the first statements made in John 2:16, yet after his overthrowing acts. Still that initial statement should have been enough to enlighten these “knowledgeable” leaders (cf. The disciples own understanding in John 2:17). I rather see that Christ had love for those who were being swindled, misled and oppressed. From the start, these Jewish leaders collectively had reach the stage of unrevokable judgement. They effectively lost their position to Christ. There only solution was to align themselves with what Christ’s leadership, and they manifestly fully understood this implication, however they basely wanted an ‘external sign’ John 2:18, rather than heed the substantive Biblical truth (John 2:16, 17)

Originally Posted By: Tom
The majority of the time Christ treated the Jewish leaders with respect, and avoided confrontation with them.


Expressing truth, even if force has to be used is not disrespect. The wayward and unbiblical actions and statements of these did not deserve any respect, lest Christ be thus complicit in their waywardness, or worse, emboldened then through this “respect” in this wrong, unBiblical and vitally dangerous path.

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


Your underlying points did not hold up to the actual light of God’s word including the SOP. So this conclusion is thus baseless. The fact that Simon, a Pharisee had already manifested interest in Christ and had in thanks for his healing organized this public known feast was reason enough for Christ to be patient with him and his growing faith. That mere public association, indeed vs. Nicodemus covert one, almost automatically put Simon at odds with the rest of the other Jewish leaders. As EGW says:

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 557.1
Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ's followers. He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.


So Christ had ample tangible reasons to be most patient with this relatively brave and faith action. Thus Christ indeed wanted to save him and excused his wayward thought here, as he similarly repeatedly did for his own disciples. However an outspoken condemnatory denunciation would have brought a corresponding, at the very least, indicative correction. Cf. Matt 16:21-23).

Quote:
NJK: however he partly swallowed his pride here, which warranted this merciful treatment.

Tom: 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 view of your has already been disproven by how Jesus actually dealt with prideful objectors throughout his minsitry, including defaulty with Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry. In fact the only, relatively, “plain” statement I see Christ making to, inclusively some of these leaders during his ministry, before the Matt 23 plain statements, was in Luke 4:21, which was in contrast to the reading of Isa 61:1, 2 which had been ‘well received’ (vs. 22; cf. DA 236.4-237.2) however Christ immediately enjoined this spiritually glib reception with cutting words that led these people to become filled with murderous rage vss. 23-30. (Cf. DA 237.3ff)

Quote:
NJK: Also Christ would be dealing with unexpressed thoughts, so, as to not compel faith here, he had to veiledly address this opposition, as He mercifully deemed it necessary.

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


It does when you carefully read it. Mercy was being shown because these sharply objecting thoughts were nonetheless suppressed by Simon. Mercy is what leads to salvation for people at fault like Simon was here. And Simon, who should have known better, did not deserve this patient treatment. He shouldhave even inward gave deference to Christ’s judgement and wisdom inaccepting this gift of Mary. As EGW says of Simon Character: “he had not accepted Him [Jesus] as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged.” So at best he was just as deprived in character as the other Jewish leaders, hence why he could not perceive the Spiritual/Prophetic import of this accepted act by Christ.

Quote:
NJK: (3) choose to dismiss points made in the Bible and also SOP, even ‘preferring’ the mere speculations of men (e.g., ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’s volcano’)

Tom: It's a common idea, if you look at commentaries, that a natural disaster of some sort occurred in the 5 cities on the plain. There's nothing in either Scripture nor the SOP that precludes this idea. The idea cited is no more speculative than your own.


Where am I “speculating” here, as implied, or anywhere else for that matter. Do point out a couple of examples, if true! My statements are painstakingly, exegetically derived from the Bible with, when agreeing, the SOP. (I address this volcano notion below).

Quote:
NJK:I’ve never heard of it before, at all in neither Christian or SDA circles.

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

Quote:
"Brimstone," possibly the ancient name for sulphur, evokes the acrid odor of volcanic activity. (www.answers.com)


This is a pretty well-known idea.

-----

NJK: The clear Bible and SOP statements do not leave opportunity this view as they both say that God cause the fire and brimstone to come down from Heaven and EGW would have easily been shown this.

Tom: "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.


You need to seek for a natural explanation as to how “sulfur stones” could rain down from heaven. In your view they had to be projected from a volcano to seem like they can from Heaven. I rather see that when the Bible and the SOP clearly say that they Fire was “from Yahweh” and “out of the heaven/sky” this double specification does preclude a “natural” (i.e., already supposed to occur) occurrence here. It indeed does not say: ‘from a volcano nearby’ which indeed had to be very near. I rather see that God caused, i.e., through His working angels, His active agents for most destructions, this fire to fall straight down from Heaven (i.e., beyond our atmosphere) by e.g., gathering the brimstones from the sulfuric volcanic moon of Jupiter.

Your ‘natural volcano supposition’ here has the added problem of timeliness here. Did God first wait for a nearby volcano to be about to erupt before making this trip to Earth for this destruction, (which also has the implied notion that God is subservient to nature to timely effectuate his will).

Also the SOP statements that:

“Here the angels left them, a turned back to Sodom to accomplish their work of destruction*” and “The storm of divine judgment was only waiting that these poor fugitives might make their escape” (PP 160.2) and “Again the solemn command was given to hasten, for the fiery storm would be delayed but little longer” (PP 161.2) all show that God was playing a most active part in this destruction. Even simply no longer controlling a volcano involves an action of God.

*(The manifest needed presence of these angels near the cities to be destroyed may have been scientifically as necessary as a Military’s need at times today of Marines to be on the ground, close that a target, to “paint” it with a laser to accurately guide an incoming missile. Indeed those cities would need more targeted hits than the rest of the plain to physically destroy them.)

Also God’s sparing of Bela/Zoar at Lot’s entreaty (PP 161.1) shows that God could “whimsically” control where the brimstone and fire went.

EGW repeatedly refers to this destruction as a “storm/tempest”. Clearly there was notion/indication in here visionary view here that this was merely a volcanic eruption.

And the actual mathematical science for a volcano to destroy five cities and an entire valley, and not by lava flow, but sulfur stone, most of which are relatively small, is, to my knowledge, naturally not attested or logically feasible.

Quote:
NJK: Commentaries don’t begin to make any significant statement here as they are merely speculating.

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


I base my Biblical conclusion on careful exegesis of the Bible and SOP and not outright, even illogical third-party speculation. Your view needs to preclude that God and/or through His angels, actively does these acts, and that defaulty makes your conclusions foundations shaky, especially when they are not explicitly suggested in either the texts of the Bible or SOP.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Also it can easily be verified if a volcano exists on that archeological site. Volcanoes just don’t disappear. And how does a supposed Flood Salt rock eruption come to affect that S&G destruction hundreds of years later?


Quote:
Certain aspects of the biblical story of the Cities of the Plain have in recent years become widely accepted. Among them is the placing of those cities in the southern basin of the Dead Sea, the assumption that those cities are now covered by Dead Sea water and, in particular, the belief that their destruction was due to catastrophic geological causes, such as an earthquake. The Bible emphasizes the agricultural richness of the Jordan plain prior to the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah and its catastrophic transformation into a wasteland. Thus, stripped of ethical and religious overtones, the scenario is that of a rapid climatic change that converted a densely inhabited and richly watered area into an infertile salt playa. The region northeast and southeast of Jericho, which today is quite barren as a result of the upward movement of salty ground water but which contains some of the World's earliest known agricultural settlements, fits such a picture. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/l8243r611174n710/)


Volcanoes are usually in some type of mountainous forms. (Only volcanic fissure vents are flat but when erupting have no explosive activity.) So for it to be covered by the Dead Sea, which is not that deep, especially at its indeed S&G southern end which does not exceed 16 ft (see SDABD 1051) would not cover a volcano. So to prove your theory here you need to pinpoint where that volcano, and or its remains are. (Try Google Earth). And for brimstones to be hurled at a great distance, an quite high volcano dome would be needed to provide the required ground clearance when propelled.

Also this volcanic sulfur stone propelling would oddly have to be onsided instead of concentrically circular, unless that supposed volcano was in the midst of this valley. Then it should not be hard to pinpoint it in even in the 16ft covered depth of the Southern part

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

Quote:
other Cities of the Plain were destroyed by volcanic activity (presumably initiated by divine intervention) which ignited the sulfur and bitumen lying under


The Bible and SOP, and that unlike the Flood account with the mention of “fountains of the deep” make no mention of ‘contributing underground activity’. Only projectiles from the Sky/Heaven are related. So I don’t see this supposition as Biblically viable/valid.

Originally Posted By: Tom
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.


Widely, and contra-Biblically, presumed, at best! I have no need to go outside of Biblical Testimony to have the truth of what happened then. No view of mine is forcing me to ignore the clear Biblical account here. Again, at the very least Bible writers living much closer to these times, and even EGW would have known, been shown, that a volcano and underground eruptions were used for this destruction. Indeed that would have served to prevent an unbeliever later claiming that there was nothing supernatural that occurred in that observable, and widely renowned, valley and cities destruction, as “it was just a volcano that had erupted.

Originally Posted By: Tom
(more later)


Hope it is more Biblically substantive and exegetically engaging/tenable that these replies!


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #133010
04/28/11 04:16 AM
04/28/11 04:16 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I could easily debunk all of your arguments in your latest post, including the peripheral one, but I won’t even succinctly begin to do so as this discussion is no longer worthwhile for me, especially in having to restate and/or having to unspin and remake clear what you have spinned and obfuscatedly made unclear in order to have a peg upon which to hang your objecting points. A careful and logical reading of what I had said should sustain my points. The lack of actually proper exegesis, which also includes EGW’s subordination to the Bible, also makes this discussion more complicated than it needs to be.

My only option here is to let it play out and in the end we will see who had the Biblical view. And I judiciously choose to exercise it now. I’ll have to answer for this wasting of time. So long Tom, at least, for this discussion.

(Still “can’t” find time to read my blog post on the fundamental “War in Heaven” exposition. Seems like an ostrich move to me so that you can “oblivious” (actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)

Hell Doctrine Riddle: How does a person live for more than a couple minutes, indeed days, if not “ages”, in a Lake of Fire. By a Just, “full life-sustaining” Act of God (and not by their sinfulness)!!

Oh yeah... for the Second death- organic sin issue, see your response in #13081, which was addressing my initial post in this thread at #130766. I only later made a mention of the Tree of Life in #130887.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #133014
04/28/11 12:39 PM
04/28/11 12:39 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,819
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
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?


-“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.

-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.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
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.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #133016
04/28/11 12:44 PM
04/28/11 12:44 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2020

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,819
Midland
Quote:
(actually “indifferently”) continue to seek to impinge me with ‘having a violent/force view, and for, God’. LOL!)
Could you give an example of a view that would be a violent/force view, and for, God?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #133018
04/28/11 01:38 PM
04/28/11 01:38 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: kland
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?


-“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.

-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.

I understand conditional sentences. Except I was referring to your previous statement, or lack thereof, of your assumption that I was familiar with it. Now that you have confirmed that I am indeed not familiar with it, why do you not explain why this software is so much harder to use. It would save you precious time from having to read yet another request for the same thing. Instead, you come across as puffed up.

With nothing more to go on, I suspect you need to take a computer course on how to copy and paste.


Quote:
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.
Perhaps kland had no comprehension, and certainly saw no sign of exegetical, of what you were talking about and figured it was another tactic to blow him off since he had made a good point and you had nothing with which to object to it.


You’re the one who chose to unbelievingly (as if I am so defeated by you that I need to lie to you, LOL) truncate my explanation of the steps involved to simply ‘copy and paste’. Hence my: “If you’re familiar...” (or it should have been: ‘If you were familiar...’). And if making this request so bothers you, then don’t ask it again. Like I said, it won’t change anything. (And... and I can’t believe I am even remotely honoring this ignorant statement of yours, a “course in copy/pasting” won’t help. In fact the more formal way of copying a pasting in Bibleworkis more time consuming, and is actually better for the copying of large amounts of varying texts and/or from various Bible versions.)

By the way, I actually don’t see that ‘you had made a good point.’ Most of them are irrational and illogical to me, particular as they are usually hypothetical and that based on false realities. So that assumption of yours here is only your personal esteem of your statements.

Last edited by NJK Project; 04/28/11 04:05 PM.

“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Page 81 of 105 1 2 79 80 81 82 83 104 105

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Coronavirus - potential impacts
by His child. 02/26/20 08:18 AM
Apostasy of a most startling nature....
by ProdigalOne. 02/25/20 02:05 AM
Iowa Caucuses Chaos
by kland. 02/24/20 10:54 AM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 02/23/20 12:37 PM
Christ's Seventy Times Seven and Daniel 9
by Green Cochoa. 02/21/20 12:01 AM
Annihilationism?
by Rick H. 02/20/20 05:27 AM
Hollywood Babylon!
by ProdigalOne. 02/18/20 11:36 AM
What kind of music do you have at your church?
by Rick H. 02/17/20 07:12 PM
The end time order of events and biblical timeline.
by His child. 02/10/20 04:30 AM
The Judgment of the Living
by His child. 02/02/20 07:15 AM
A Church kicking out Seniors
by JPT. 02/01/20 08:20 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Image of the Beast forming?
by His child. 02/26/20 08:41 AM
EGW Quotes Regarding New Light
by APL. 02/25/20 11:46 PM
SIGNS!
by His child. 02/25/20 07:47 AM
Will we continue to sin till the end?
by His child. 02/24/20 11:11 PM
Edward Heppenstall, his views and theology.
by Rick H. 02/24/20 02:32 PM
Pope Francis Is in Control
by His child. 02/23/20 09:58 PM
Has the General Conference Fallen?
by His child. 02/20/20 11:06 AM
New Light; The Ten Horns of Rev 17
by His child. 02/19/20 07:17 AM
Will Trump Pass The Sunday Law?
by His child. 02/16/20 11:01 PM
When Does Satan Impersonate Christ?
by His child. 02/16/20 11:36 AM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by His child. 02/14/20 05:40 AM
What is the daily in Daniel 8:11?
by Rick H. 02/11/20 08:42 AM
Pantheism Alert!
by Rick H. 02/01/20 08:56 AM
Like a CORPSE
by JPT. 01/31/20 11:23 AM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1