Did Saul sin? (Aside from the main Destruction of Wicked).

[Guest]

You can't apply that to everything Lutz.

[Lutz13]

You can't apply that to everything Lutz.

So we just pick and choose when it applies? God just up and changes on us? I believe it has to apply every time. Otherwise the bible just one huge contradiction right after another. Starting with, God is love, yet He burns people alive and tortures them.

[Guest]

Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: Luk 10:21

[Guest]

A lot of things that apply while redemption is nigh, will no longer apply after probation closes.

[Lutz13]

A lot of things that apply while redemption is nigh, will no longer apply after probation closes.

So God is love now, but He will turn into a God of hate?

[Guest]

No! he puts an end to sin. No one is lost that dosn't want to be. You have a choice. Jesus already died so you could have a choice.

[Lutz13]

So why not just put them to sleep? Why punish them by burning them alive and torturing them? To make sure they don't do it again? Aren't they pretty much going to be as though they never existed anyways?

[Guest]

I can't explain all of God's ways, nobody can. But he knows why.

[teresaq]

that is said by those who want others to accept their understanding without questioning.

[Twilight]

Conditions before the flood were radically different from what they have been since. The key to that difference lies in the state of the sun and moon, the former having been seven times as hot as it now is and the latter having been equal to our present sun. This meant that eight times today's heat and light was being beamed upon the earth before the flood.

The Scriptural evidence is found in Isaiah 30:26.

"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound."

This is both a prophecy of the future and a description of the past. God is telling what He will do when He will bind up "the breach of His people," and will heal "the stroke of their wound." This is restoration, the bringing back of that which was already there. If this involves increasing the sun to seven times its present intensity and the moon to equal the present sun, then this is how it was before the flood.

It will be when the Creator makes a new heaven and earth, that this restoration will be achieved. At that time, the sun and moon combined will be transmitting eight times and light now being produced.

With these two orbs of fire jointly serving the new heavens and new earth, a vastly changed condition of things will prevail from what they are now. This would appear so drastic as to cause many to think that the Scripture predicting this has to be understood only figuratively. The words are to be understood literally however, as the following statement verifies:

"All will be a happy, united family, clothed with the garments of praise and thanksgiving--the robe of Christ's righteousness. All nature in its supassing loveliness will offer to God a constant tribute of praise and adoration. The world will be bathed in the light of Heaven. The years will move on in gladness. The light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold greater than it is now. Over the scene the morning stars will sing together, and the sons of God will shout for joy, while God and Christ will unite in proclaiming, 'There shall be no more sin, neither shall there be any more death.' E.G. White, My Life Today,348. See also Ministry of Healing,506 or Testimonies, Vol.8, 42 or The Review and Herald, Nov.6,1903.

This statement does verify that Isaiah 30:26 is truly a prophecy of the future and a description of the past.

to be continued

I am not quite sure how this prophecy can be applied retrospectively.

I do not see anything in the quote to indicate this.

Have I missed something?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Stewart (SDA)

What is the problem that you see with that Richard?

stewart.

The Bible says God did it. So does EGW.

Fair point. :-)

[Twilight]

What I find very revealing is that those that deny God the right to destroy have not answered this simple question:

Did Saul sin when he killed those he was ordered to?

Yes or no?

I think the avoidance of this question highlights the weakness of the theory.

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

Post # 4 280331

Post # 5 The Flood # 280336

The first appearance of rain in Noah's day is positive proof that it was then that the extinguishing of the moon and the dimming of the sun took place. Confirmation of this is provided by both Isaiah and Peter. The evidence from Isaiah has already been quoted. Here it is again:

"Morever the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound." Isaiah 30:26.

This text supplies the proof that the sun was reduced in brightness and the moon went out at the time of the flood, for, the promise that the sun and the moon will be restored will be fulfilled.

A healing is the restoring to an original condition. If, in this healing work, the sun and moon are to be brought back to what they were, then it had to be at the making of the breach and the wounding that the sun and moon suffered their reductions. So it is only necessary to determine when the breach was made and the stroke administered, to know when the sun and moon were depleted of their powers.

There is only one point of time when a great stroke was delivered against mankind which produced a terrible breach on human population and that was at the flood. So great was the stroke and the resulting breach in the human family that total extermination almost resulted. God has promised to restore that which was lost but not those who were lost.

There have been many minor stokes made against humanity, but none of these compare with the great flood and the damage it caused. The time is coming though, when that will be restored. The sun will come back to seven times its brightness and the moon will become as bright as the sun is today, thus re-establishing the earth to its pre-flood state.

What caused the sun and the moon to lose their powers is a question yet to be determined, but the answer will come as we proceed. Firstly, some considerations must be given to New Testament evidences that great changes did take place at the flood.

to be continued

Post # 6

In the Old Testament it is Isaiah who provides the information that there was a great change at the time of the flood. In the New Testament it is Peter. In fact the latter writer is even more specific in that he names the flood as the great point of change.

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7.

In these words, Peter divides history into two periods--antediluvian and post-diluvian. When referring to the world after that catastrophe, he speaks of "the heavens and the earth, which are now."

He does not speak only of the earth which is now, as being different from what was before, he also includes the heavens in the change. The heavens which changed at the time of the flood were those governed by the sun and the moon of this solar system.

Before the flood, the sun was seven times brighter and the moon was as bright as the sun. The sun ruled the day and the moon the night. There was a wonderful mantle of protective vapour around the earth and the climate from pole to pole was of pleasant, even temperatures. It never rained but a gentle mist rose each morning to water the earth. Storms, tidal waves, earthquakes, blizzards, hurricanes, and hail storms were completely unknown. That was the heavens and the earth which then were.

But how different are the heavens and the earth which now are. The sun is dimmed to one seventh. The moon has gone out. The mantle of protection is not there. Wide diversity of climate covers the earth. Fierce storms, terrible earthquakes, destructive blizzards, pulverizing hailstorms, and a thousand other scourges blast the earth.

These are the great changes of which the wise men of today are ignorant, and willfully so. It is not that they do not believe in the flood, for many of them do, but the deluge is seen as if it were the same disasters which occur today on a lesser scale. They see the heavens and the earth before the flood as being essentially the same as the heavens and the earth after the flood. There simply came the time when an abnormally wet season flooded the entire earth. When the flood ended, as all floods do, the earth generally returned to the same situation as before. This is the thinking of those who do recognize the flood, but fail to acknowledge the real changes which took place there.

We see from a more thorough and careful study of the Scriptures that the changes were much more far-reaching than that. It is needful that their full extent be understood, together with the causes, namely, the dimming of the sun and the extinguishing of the moon.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

What I find very revealing is that those that deny God the right to destroy have not answered this simple question:

Did Saul sin when he killed those he was ordered to?

Yes or no?

I think the avoidance of this question highlights the weakness of the theory.

Mark :-)

That question has already been answered in a previous post. Saul did sin by not obeying the command perfectly. The Israelites still wanted God to protect them but not without the use of the sword. May be you missed the following post, a parable which helps us understand the wars of Israel and God's instructions during those wars.

Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. As is to be expected, the majority of men in the town were keen hunters never missing the opportunity to take their guns out and track down the game.

But one man was different. He had the love of God in his heart and to kill the beautiful dwellers in the forests and mountains was contrary to his nature. So he was never seen in company with the men trailing off to seek their adventures in the blood of others. For their part, they were troubled by this odd man out and never lost an occasion to persuade him, if possible, to join them. At one time, they even bought him a splendid hunting rifle for his birthday. With Christian graciousness, he gently declined the gift. This was naturally resented, causing those men to increase the pressure on him, but despite this, year after year, there was no change in him. The only equipment with which he would hunt was a good camera.

This man had a fine son whom he was most anxious to protect from the influence of the hunters around. He worked untiringly to instill into him the same love of the wildlife which he possessed, and was gratified to see that he was having good success in this direction. Thus the father was working to have the boy do things his way as distinct from the hunter's way.

The father did not take away the boy's freedom of choice. When he eventually reached later youth, he became answerable for himself and was no longer under the direct control and discipline of his father. He received an invitation to spend some weeks away from home and, eager to see new country, accepted the kindly offer. This was a clever plot by the huntsmen, who sent their sons along to invite the boy, once he was away from the father's direct influence, to go hunting with them. They urged him to try it just once to see how he liked it. Feeling that no harm would be done by an on-the-spot personal appraisal of the hunting business, he went along.

His first reaction was unfavorable but, something about the challenge, thrill, and excitement, drew him back and soon he was an enthusiastic devotee. He went to the sports store, selected a beautifully engineered weapon, and in due time returned with it to his dismayed father. He had exercised his choice and now the father was confronted with a situation which required a response. How would he now relate himself to this turn of events? Clearly the young man had instituted in his life a course contrary to the ways of his father.

For the father, the choice lay between several alternatives. The first option was to disown the son, forbidding his entrance to the home and requiring he go his own separate way. The justification for this would have been the certainty that the principles of father and son could never harmonize.

Another course would have called for the use of force to coerce the lad's surrender to his father's wishes and ways. This was not the answer for two reasons. Firstly the youth had achieved the age of independence, so it would have been impossible for the father to achieve the desired result anyway. But, secondly, it was not in his father's nature any more than it is in the character of God, to use force. To them, the only acceptable service is that which springs from an educated heart of love.

A third alternative was to quietly ignore the change, pretend that the rifle had never been brought into the home, and act as if all were well when, in fact, it was not. Having considered and rejected each of these possibilities, what would have been left for this godly man to do?

Firstly, the man recognized that his son had placed himself, other people, domestic livestock, and wild animals, in a position of great danger. Being an inexperienced and untrained rifleman, he did not understand the necessity of looking beyond the target to ensure that there was no buildings, people, or farm animals in the line of fire. He needed to understand how to carry the weapon so that in climbing through fences, for instance, he did not, as so many have done, shoot himself or his friends. He must be made aware of the awful potential of the ricochet, when a bullet, glancing from rock or tree, will embed itself in a target far to the right or left of the original sighting. He must come close enough to the game to eliminate the possibility of only wounding the animal which would then drag itself away to suffer a lingering death. These and other things he could be taught in order to save himself and others from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

While the father could no longer save the youth from taking the gun, he could, if permitted, provide the instruction needed to save him from these serious consequences. Even the wild animals would benefit from this saving ministry, for, while they could not be saved from death, they could be delivered from a painful and lingering one.

When the boy's father found that his long pursued objectives of saving the youth from taking up weapons had failed, he still recognized that there was much he could do to save the boy from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

So, sadly, but with tender dignity the father drew his son aside and spoke with him. He expressed disappointment that the younger man had chosen to go the way he had, but assured him that he would respect his decision fully. He gently suggested that there were dangers associated with the use of such a weapon, from which perils he could only be safeguarded by receiving and obeying a number of specific precautions. The father intimated that he was more than willing to carefully instruct the son in these things so that he would be saved from the worst results of what he had chosen.

The son, relieved that his parent was not launching against him a fiery denunciation of his ways, no longer braced himself to resist such pressure. Instead he expressed his willingness to learn. Israel, for instance, was not prepared to trust God fully by leaving the sword alone, but they accepted and followed His counsels regarding the restrictions designed to minimize its evils. In like manner, the son who had abandoned his father's principles regarding the total rejection of firearms, was prepared to respect his counsels in the use of them.

God, who has been placed in the same position by the determination of His children to take up weapons of destruction, has likewise solemnly warned that His effort to save them from the worst effects of what they have chosen does not indicate any change in Him, even though His actions could and have been interpreted otherwise. "I am the Lord, I change not;" "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever;" "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6; Heb.13:8; James 1:17.

The father in our story did not have to change his ways in order to instruct the son to be a kind killer, neither did God have to change His ways to save Israel from being cruel users of the sword.

Now suppose that one of the villagers, the man who had most ardently sought to convert the father, had happened to come down the lane as this session was in progress. From a distance too great to hear all that has been said, he beheld the father instructing the son in the use of firearms. What assumptions will this man make? What conclusions will he draw? He never was possessed of the spirit of the father and therefore, could never understand it. Accordingly, there was no possibility of his correctly assessing what the father was doing. Instead, he would have interpreted what he saw as sure proof that the father had changed.

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as the father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

At the golden calf, God gave direct instructions through Moses for the Levites to take their swords and execute the unrepentant rebels. Men have taken these facts and from them have drawn their own conclusions. While the facts are correct, the conclusions drawn from them are wholly wrong. They have declared with great satisfaction that God has changed and has become like one of them--a destroyer. They could not be more mistaken. Thankfully, God has not changed. He has not become like men; He is not a destroyer. Sin has not changed Him, neither have sinful men.

[skyblue888]

Post # 6 The Flood (changes in the heavens)

In the Old Testament it is Isaiah who provides the information that there was a great change at the time of the flood. In the New Testament it is Peter. In fact the latter writer is even more specific in that he names the flood as the great point of change.

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:3-7.

In these words, Peter divides history into two periods--antediluvian and post-diluvian. When referring to the world after that catastrophe, he speaks of "the heavens and the earth, which are now."

He does not speak only of the earth which is now, as being different from what was before, he also includes the heavens in the change. The heavens which changed at the time of the flood were those governed by the sun and the moon of this solar system.

Before the flood, the sun was seven times brighter and the moon was as bright as the sun. The sun ruled the day and the moon the night. There was a wonderful mantle of protective vapour around the earth and the climate from pole to pole was of pleasant, even temperatures. It never rained but a gentle mist rose each morning to water the earth. Storms, tidal waves, earthquakes, blizzards, hurricanes, and hail storms were completely unknown. That was the heavens and the earth which then were.

But how different are the heavens and the earth which now are. The sun is dimmed to one seventh. The moon has gone out. The mantle of protection is not there. Wide diversity of climate covers the earth. Fierce storms, terrible earthquakes, destructive blizzards, pulverizing hailstorms, and a thousand other scourges blast the earth.

These are the great changes of which the wise men of today are ignorant, and willfully so. It is not that they do not believe in the flood, for many of them do, but the deluge is seen as if it were the same disasters which occur today on a lesser scale. They see the heavens and the earth before the flood as being essentially the same as the heavens and the earth after the flood. There simply came the time when an abnormally wet season flooded the entire earth. When the flood ended, as all floods do, the earth generally returned to the same situation as before. This is the thinking of those who do recognize the flood, but fail to acknowledge the real changes which took place there.

We see from a more thorough and careful study of the Scriptures that the changes were much more far-reaching than that. It is needful that their full extent be understood, together with the causes, namely, the dimming of the sun and the extinguishing of the moon.

to be continued

[Twilight]

But did Saul sin?

To be honest Sky, I would prefer if we stayed on topic?

Maybe this should be the subject of a new thread?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

I really would like a response from one of the advocates of God never destroying.

Did Saul sin by obeying Gods command to kill?

[skyblue888]

Post # 7 The Flood # 281012

When Noah emerged from the ark, God made a special promise and prophecy to him that there never would be a flood upon the earth again. That promise is repeated in Isaiah. "Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended." Isaiah 60:20.

Usually we refer to the sun or the moon "going down" when they appear to sink below the western horizon, but this is an erroneous expression, for neither the sun nor the moon go down in relation to the earth. They only appear to. The disappearance of these heavenly bodies behind the western mountains or plains is caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis so that as the earth turns we are the ones who "go down"--not the sun and moon.

Because of its scientific inaccuracy this understanding of the expression "go down," as used in the Scripture under consideration, must be highly suspect. That it is not the correct interpretation is made evident by certain facts revealed in the Word of God.

The first creation was perfect and the second will be a reproduction of it. There can be no differences between the second and the first because perfection cannot be improved; any modification being an admission that the first was imperfect and thus required improvement.

In the first creation, there was day and night occasioned by what we term the "going down" of the sun. If the promise of Isaiah 60:20 provided that the sun would never set in the western sky, then there would be no day and night as in the original, perfect creation. Some may point to the reference in Revelation 22:5, "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever," and claim this teaches that there will not even be a sun in the new earth, for it will not be needed.

However, we are confident that most will recognize that this Scripture is not describing conditions in the new earth generally but as they will be in the New Jerusalem. Even then it does not say there will be no sun, but only that there will be no need of it for there will be the greater light streaming from the presence of God. So far as the rest of the earth is concerned it will have, as promised in Isaiah 30:26, a blazing sun and a brilliant moon. The earth will still rotate on its axis and each evening the sun will appear to "go down" behind the western horizon as it does today.

Furthermore, why would the Lord make a special promise that the sun would never go down again behind the western horizon each evening when such an event was no trouble or problem? It is a perfectly normal and desirable occurence, introducing the blessings of the night. Therefore, if this is all the Lord was offering in that Scripture, it could hardly be regarded as a precious promise.

The promise is made in respect to the new earth dwellers who will again be enjoying perfect climatic conditions. They will know what happened when the sun went down in intensity and the moon withdrew itself in the days of Noah. To them, the promise that this will not happen again is a very valuable and precious one for by this means they are assured that never again will their beautiful home be flooded to destruction.

The guarantee offered in this Scripture is not merely that it will never happen, but that it will happen "no more." "Thy sun will no more go down..." If it is to happen no more, then it must have happened already. The only occasion it could have been was when the dimming of the sun and the extinguishing of the moon brought the deluge. Therefore, this verse along with Isaiah 30:26 and 2 Peter 3:3-7, is directly referring to the great changes which occured in both the earth and the heavens when the sun went down in intensity and the moon withdrew itself. Consequently, the world "that then was," was very different from the "heavens and the earth, which now are."

To be continued

[skyblue888]

But did Saul sin?

To be honest Sky, I would prefer if we stayed on topic?

Maybe this should be the subject of a new thread?

Mark :-)

Mark, I did stay on topic by answering your question one more time and the other posts are in response to Gail's request as it relates to the topic whether God is an executioner of the sentence against transgression or not.

sky

[Guest]

sky, a simple question from someone does not mean you can just go page after page after page of long drawn out posts on a totally different topic. That is called Hijacking the thread. Mark has asked you to stay on topic and so have others. But it is Marks thread. Have a little consideration. The person who asked you a simple question has not replied once to your long postings on the flood. It would be just as easy, and a lot more considerate to start a new thread, and call it "THE FLOOD".

[skyblue888]

Post # 8 The Flood (radiocarbon 14) #281036

It is the utter failure by modern scientists to understand the full extent of these changes which has led them into erroneous conclusions in all matters of dating extending beyond historical records. While the earth is, in fact, six thousand years of age, they date it in the hundreds of millions of years.

Great excitement was experienced during the nineteen-forties when the radiocarbon method of dating was developed. Careful testing of the procedure with materials of known age proved its accuracy. Thus, the dating of materials of otherwise undetermined age was undertaken and, to the delight of the scientists, the readout agreed with established postulations of the age of the earth and life upon it. Whereas the Biblical record allows for only about six thousand years, they confirmed figures running into millions.

At the time, faithful Bible students were perplexed to some extent by this, for the evolutionists fell that they had a sure upper-hand in the everlasting debate on the age of the earth. There seemed a real possibility that the Bible, after all, could be proved to be in error. But those who understood, even back there, the full extent of the changes which did take place at the flood, recognized immediately the defect in their calibrations. The relaying of this information to the perplexed among God's people quickly set their minds at rest.

There is a continual bombardment of this earth by cosmic rays from outer space. These, interacting with the nitrogen in the atmosphere cause all living organisms to absorb radiocarbon 14. This continues until the death of the living thing, be it plant, animal, or human. Thereafter the radiocarbon 14 breaks down at an accurately known rate. To determine how long since death took place, the residual radiocarbon in the specimen is measured.

When samples were tested, there was found to be a complete absence of any radiocarbon 14. Complete disintegration of the radiocarbon material had taken place. Knowing that this could happen only over an exceedingly long period of time, they dated the coal, for example, as being many hundreds of thousands of years old.

In doing so they did the very thing God, through Peter, foretold they would do. They denied that there had ever been a great change in the heavens and the earth and worked on the assumption that "... all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 2 Peter 3;4.

Had they understood that the earth was mantled by that protective water vapour, they would have known that before the flood, cosmic rays could never have penetrated into our atmosphere as they do today. Plants and animals did not absorb any radiocarbon 14 before the flood because the band of moisture filtered the rays out before they ever reached the nitrogen in the earth's atmosphere. Therefore, scientists found no radiocarbon in the coal, not because it had all disintegrated, but because it was never there originally. Thus the radiocarbon clock, far from denying the truth of the Bible, actually serves to confirm it.

Had the heavens and the earth been the same before the flood as they are now, with no better protection from cosmic ray penetration, then the trees would have absorbed it as they do today. When buried by the flood, the breakdown would have proceeded and the measuring instruments today would have shown the coal to be a little less than five thousand years old. We know how old the coal is without the help of a radiocarbon clock. We have the Word of God and from its utterly relibable source we know that the flood occured about four thousand, four hundred years ago.

If the scientists were to allow for the great changes made in the heavens and the earth at the Flood, they would also make allowances for their dating techniques and would not propose such astronomical figures for the age of the earth.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

sky, a simple question from someone does not mean you can just go page after page after page of long drawn out posts on a totally different topic. That is called Hijacking the thread. Mark has asked you to stay on topic and so have others. But it is Marks thread. Have a little consideration. The person who asked you a simple question has not replied once to your long postings on the flood. It would be just as easy, and a lot more considerate to start a new thread, and call it "THE FLOOD".

Richard, at the beginning of this thread, you yourself made this comment to me as to "who turned the faucet on" to cause the flood.

It is not possible for me to start a new thread. So if you or Mark will start a new thread for me with the Title How Did God Send The Flood? it will be much appreciated. Then I will delete all my posts dealing with the Flood which are in this thread.

thanks

sky

[John317]

Speaking as moderator:

sky, I appreciate what you've written about the Flood, and I intend to read all of it carefully. But in the meantime, I'm going to begin a thread on that subject and will use your first post on the topic as the beginning post.

Could you copy those posts and move them to the other thread? After you've moved them there, I will delete them from this thread. Then we can have an uninterrupted discussion of that important, interesting question without hijacking the thread about Saul.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Thank you John!

[Guest]

As they endeavored to represent God by material objects, their minds were blinded to His majesty and power; they ceased to realize the holiness of His character, or the sacred, unchanging nature of His requirements. As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth. {PP 96}