Leaderboard

HCH, thank you for opening the discussion up to an issue that I will suggest is important. Let us look at the image of Daniel 2: In Daniel 2, the image is described as having: * A head of good. * Chest and arms of silver. * Belly and thighs of brass. * Legs of iron. * Feet and toes of iron and clay. * A stone that demolishes the image. Each of the above is further explained in the chapter. E.G Nebuchadnezzar is represented by the head of gold. If we believe that the Bible is sufficient to explain itself, it is very important to note what the Bible explains and what it does not explain. We can state with confidence that Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold because the Bible says so. But, it is just as important to note what that Bible does not explain. The Bible does not state: * That there are two (2) legs. * That there are ten (10) toes) * That there are five (5) toes on each leg. I know of people who attempt to give detailed discussions of all three (3) of the above on the basis that people generally have two (2) legs and ten (10) toes. Because the Bible does not give that detail, it is not justified for us to attribute prophetic importance to such issues and to do so goes beyond the Bible. Yet, I know of people who think it proper to do so. such is reading into the Biblical text what in not there. NOTE: We can not say that everyone has two legs and 10 toes. I have a relative who has eleven (11) toes.

you totally missed the point of my post... it had nothing to do with the discussion, other than to show what caused the quoting problem to which Gregory was referring.

Fire from God out of heaven is not fire from God out of heaven the way you are reading it. There are different fires from God out of heaven so have to look at context every time to see what kind it is. Here is one. Please explain to me why I can't read it as you are suggesting: Job 1:16 While he [was] yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

I have been searching for an answer to Hebrew Roots teachers, who say that Jesus CANNOT ever be a priest on this earth. I believe HE can be - and will be - just like Melchizedek, who was a priest and a king - on the earth. The Hebrew Roots folks say that God never changes, and that HE will never change any command that He has ever spoken. If they are right, then Jesus CANNOT BE a priest on earth - like Melchizedek. That is why I want to study - very carefully - exactly what HE said. Was the covenant, the command, or the promise conditional or unconditional? The promise to Abraham was unconditional. Abraham's SEED would inherit "the land". That promise passed through many generations before finding fulfillment - in Christ. Same for the promise to David, that a son of His would rule over Israel forever. (Israel would have to EXIST forever, for David's son to rule Israel forever - for the promise to be true.) The priesthood was NOT unconditional. Their consecration involved a "blood covenant". A "blood covenant" is NOT unconditional, unless - as with Abraham - only the LORD Himself were to take the oath by passing "through the pieces".

"God's sovereign will" - what does it mean? If HE will not override our FREE WILL, then how can it BE "sovereign" - at least as far as deciding our actions? I don't believe it DOES decide our actions. Does it even determine who will receive eternal life? Don't we decide that - by our choices? I AGREE: God's intention or GOAL, is for those of human kind, who assent to serve Him (to love Him and to love one another), to be established in a kingdom (under His Son). That being said, has God given any commands (or prophecies), which He later rescinded, changed, or modified? Did the LORD intend for Israel to wander 40 years in the wilderness? Was that HIS intention, or his adaptation - to Israel's the stage of maturity.

Green and Kevin S have been commenting on hermeneutics. As part of that discussion, Green said: I will suggest that there has been a misunderstanding of the meaning of hermeneutics. At the least it seems to me that in this discussion, that word has not been used with its basic meaning. Fundamentally hermeneutics means the theory and methods that one uses in seeking to understand the Bible. NOTE: I am talking about its application to the Bible. Once one understands the fundamental meaning, it must be said that in the quote above, Green has stated his hermeneutic. That is clearly expressed by his statement that he approaches the Bible looking for a "plain saith the LORD." Yes, Green could expand on that if he chose. Regardless he has done what he says God does not require. I will suggest that God does require a valid hermeneutic, whatever that may be, in order to understand the Bible. NOTE: In the history of the term, hermeneutics and exegesis were once used interchangeably.

The third angel's message is the everlasting gospel which is the righteousness of Christ/God. This is the theme of the great controversy. Satan has issued a challenge to God's character and government. Satan's way is that of force and he has attributed the same to God. But God's way is love. Freedom has to be it. Freedom to choose God or not choose Him. But not choosing Him carries consequences because only in Him is life. He doesn't have to torture with fire and then kill after a time to prove anything. He need only give the wicked over to their choice. You need not worry that they might not suffer, if that is so important to you. They will suffer. The language is all highly symbolic, as is much of Revelation. The smoke of their torment going up forever, we have figured out, but can't seem to give up the rest of it. It is time. This language is taken from the OT, as you should know, from the battle of Gog and Magog, Eze. 38-39. It is all language of recompense that comes back upon the wicked as the fruit of their own doing. But we have insisted on making it literal punishment by violent exercise of physical forces at the behest of a trigger-pulling God. Away with such a God! This is SATAN!

Let us now exercise our mental powers. It is no secret that the Bible is written mostly in the modality of active wrath, in the “God-did-it” language. This is what we call the “major voice” of Scripture. Then we have the lesser heard voice of passive wrath, which is the “minor voice” of the Bible language, wherein the types of phrases depicting Divine Recession are used (e.g., 2 Chron. 30:7; Rom. 1:28; Isa. 54:8). What happens is that assent is given to the minor voice but it is not used as a key to interpret all of the language, including the major voice (e.g., Eze. 25:7; Acts 23:3). It is simply believed that the major voice, when standing alone, must stand as it reads in our own mindset, without consideration of the Hebrew mindset and manner of speaking, whence it was written, in that to have power to stop an evil and not step in, is to be the doer of that evil (DA 286.2). But there is a problem with this principle of interpretation, or hermeneutic. Follow carefully: We find that the LANGUAGE OF WRATH, where it appears as though God actually does a destructive thing, is used freely in cases where the minor voice is present or in cases where it is not. Here is an example of where we have a DIRECT MINOR VOICE revealed in Scripture relative to a particular Biblical narrative of Divine destruction: MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH) “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die” (Gen. 6:17). DIRECT MINOR VOICE (PASSIVE WRATH) “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. For this [is as] the waters of Noah unto me…” (Isa. 54:7-9a). Then there are examples where the major voice is used without the inclusion of a minor voice key, but the curtain is drawn back to show causation (aetiology), which is an INDIRECT MINOR VOICE. Here is an example: The case of Saul, in 1 Chron. 10:14 states that God did it: MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH) “And [Saul] inquired not of the LORD: therefore he [God] slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse” (1 Chron. 10:14). INDIRECT MINOR VOICE (PASSIVE WRATH) “And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him, and he was wounded of the archers. Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it” (1 Chron. 10:3, 4). The two examples thus are conclusive. The minor voice in them absolutely dictates that it was passive wrath that was being “exercised” in that God gave over. In the case of the flood, He gave over to the free course of the elements. In the case of Saul, He gave Saul over to the archers and to the course of his own action. Then, in the third class of Biblical narrative we lack any indication of the minor voice, either direct or indirect. All we have is the major voice/active wrath language. I.e., it is now perceived that God actually did it. In such a narrative we have no indication that God gave over to anything and we cannot prove causation. It simply appears, on the basis of our own interpretation of the language, without reference to the Hebrew idiomatic manner of expression, that in such cases God actually used Personal power or the power of Holy angels to punish and destroy. MAJOR VOICE (ACTIVE WRATH) “And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense” (Num. 16:35). So now, in such a case, where we have no direct or indirect minor voice brought into the narrative anywhere in the Bible, the standard view would apply a hermeneutic from outside of the Scriptures, from human philosophy, to say that God sometimes uses direct power to destroy. Herein, the standard view takes the liberty to take the major voice of apparent “active” wrath out of its setting of the Biblical/Hebrew idiomatic manner of thinking and expressing. It imposes upon the narrative the carnal understanding of judgment, justice, and punishment, after the manner of the world. All of this serves to bring God down to the level of man. The standard view, therefore, has upon it the responsibility to provide a valid Biblical hermeneutic which will validate the theory of dual modalities of wrath. In doing so, it will then succeed in proving that: 1) God is variable; 2) When we are lacking either a direct or indirect minor voice indicator we are then to take the language literally as the direct exercise of Divine power for the purpose of causing disorder (Creator becomes Destroyer), and; 3) Such action functions in accordance with the principles of carnal human governance with its notions of justice and punishment, founded upon: a) The imposition of restitution (eye for eye); b ) The desire for revenge (eye for eye), and; c) Deterrence (Continuance of Government through rule by fear of punishment) God’s power does only good for us, all the time. When the sinner rejects Him, His power is turned aside. Suffering is never His doing.