A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[Guest]

Why not just tell him where it is in the Bible, instead of telling him to read the whole thread. That's what he want's to know.

[Woody]

[pnattmbtc]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

God will not be in charge of Hell fire.

To teach this is to teach papal doctrines.

Dark Ages thinking. This is part of the wine of Babylon.

sky

In Matt 10:28 Jesus said that it is beyond human power to destroy the soul as God does in fiery hell. I think we can trust Him on that point.

In Rev 20 God says that it is HE who sends fire down on the wicked. He repeats this in Rev 14:10 and Ellen White is incredibly specific on this point.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

God will not be in charge of Hell fire.

To teach this is to teach papal doctrines.

Dark Ages thinking. This is part of the wine of Babylon.

sky

So Ellen White taught papal doctrine? What about the Bible? Wine of Babylon?

The saints in unison with Jesus pass their judgment upon the wicked dead. Behold ye! said the angel, the saints sit in judgment, in unison with Jesus, and mete out to each of the wicked, according to the deeds done in the body, and it is set off against their names what they must receive, at the execution of the judgment. {RH, November 1, 1850 par. 5}

Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

[WayneV]

Originally Posted By: WayneV

You will find it is in the Bible if you take the time to read the whole thread.

sky

I have read the whole thread, sky. I understand the arguments from each side. That doesn't answer my question. However, your reply gave me a good idea. Thanks

[pnattmbtc]

Wayne, to answer your question, sky presented an argument that the flood came about due to conditions connected to the dimming of the sun's light seven-fold and of the moon's. He quoted the Scriptures which discuss this. Once this had happened, there couldn't be another world-wide flood, because the conditions which brought about the flood no longer existed.

[Twilight]

Wayne, to answer your question, sky presented an argument that the flood came about due to conditions connected to the dimming of the sun's light seven-fold and of the moon's. He quoted the Scriptures which discuss this. Once this had happened, there couldn't be another world-wide flood, because the conditions which brought about the flood no longer existed.

That is not strictly correct.

He quoted out of context scripture to try and prove this.

That query of the usage of those texts was raised and never addressed.

The two texts supplied in the opening quote were used out of context in my view.

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Wayne, to answer your question, sky presented an argument that the flood came about due to conditions connected to the dimming of the sun's light seven-fold and of the moon's. He quoted the Scriptures which discuss this. Once this had happened, there couldn't be another world-wide flood, because the conditions which brought about the flood no longer existed.

Mark:That is not strictly correct.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Me:Wayne, to answer your question, sky presented an argument that the flood came about due to conditions connected to the dimming of the sun's light seven-fold and of the moon's. He quoted the Scriptures which discuss this. Once this had happened, there couldn't be another world-wide flood, because the conditions which brought about the flood no longer existed.

Mark:That is not strictly correct.

Of course it is. He quoted from Isaiah, as I recall.

Quote:

He quoted out of context scripture to try and prove this.

He quoted Scripture, which spoke of the decrease of the sun's luminosity. He made an inference from the Scripture he quoted, which you could take issue with, but that he quoted Scripture is incontrovertible.

Quote:

That query of the usage of those texts was raised and never addressed.

Ask him again, then. I'm sure he'll comment on it.

Quote:

The two texts supplied in the opening quote were used out of context in my view.

This is strictly correct.

I was concerned that your post implied to Wayne that Sky had "proven" this.

Hence the challenge. :-)

Mark

[pnattmbtc]

No, I've not made any comment on what sky said one way or the other. I was just trying to help in reference to Wayne's question.

[Twilight]

No, I've not made any comment on what sky said one way or the other. I was just trying to help in reference to Wayne's question.

My apologies for any offense caused. :-)

Mark

[Guest]

Once this had happened, there couldn't be another world-wide flood, because the conditions which brought about the flood no longer existed.

I've got news for you. There can be anything God wants there to be.

[pnattmbtc]

God didn't want there to be a flood. God has no desire that anyone suffer or die. He says, "Why will you die?" "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

We see the heart of God revealed in that Christ so loved His enemies that He died the most cruel death in their favor. He died the death that was theirs that they might live His life.

[Guest]

God didn't want there to be a flood.

Then why did he say this:

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I am sorry that I have made them. Gen 6:7

[pnattmbtc]

For the same reason that God warned Nineveh that they would be destroyed in 40 days. It was God's will that man repented. That's always God's will. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth.

[WayneV]

No, I've not made any comment on what sky said one way or the other. I was just trying to help in reference to Wayne's question.

Thanks for your attempt to help. I was serious that I have read the whole thread, including sky's "inference". The verses quoted do not really answer my question without the (unsupported) inferrence. One could just as easily infer that conditions that once existed could be duplicated, or recreated. There is no contextual reason to draw either inference from the texts sky used.

Again, thanks for trying to help. I was looking for something stronger from sky.

Agape`

[pnattmbtc]

Maybe sky will chime in.

To me, it's an interesting theory. Some of the elements seems to be indisputable, such as the idea of there being a canopy, and there not having been rain.

Also we know that there were waters beneath the earth which formed what would become the oceans, which didn't exists before the flood. So we know things were very different.

A point which seems clear to me is that, given the waters which would become the oceans, were beneath the earth's crust, in order to explode, if that's the right word (Scripture says "burst forth") into the atmosphere, they would have had to have been under great pressure. So God could either have been keeping the pressure under control, or could have known when things would give way, and in either case we'd have the principle that the flood occurred not as a direct arbitrary act of God causing it to happen, but of God withdrawing His protection and permitting it to happen.

Regardless of whether the idea sky is sharing is correct or not, this would still be the case.

The overriding principle is that sin is destructive, and that God protects us from thousands of dangers, all of them unseen. We just have no idea as to either the destructive power of sin or of the watchful care God provides. The great we perceive the power of sin to be, the greater we will see the power of God which prevents its destructive acts from occurring. When God does permit something like the flood to occur, it gives us a little inkling of God's power.

[Twilight]

Maybe sky will chime in.

To me, it's an interesting theory. Some of the elements seems to be indisputable, such as the idea of there being a canopy, and there not having been rain.

Also we know that there were waters beneath the earth which formed what would become the oceans, which didn't exists before the flood. So we know things were very different.

A point which seems clear to me is that, given the waters which would become the oceans, were beneath the earth's crust, in order to explode, if that's the right word (Scripture says "burst forth") into the atmosphere, they would have had to have been under great pressure. So God could either have been keeping the pressure under control, or could have known when things would give way, and in either case we'd have the principle that the flood occurred not as a direct arbitrary act of God causing it to happen, but of God withdrawing His protection and permitting it to happen.

Regardless of whether the idea sky is sharing is correct or not, this would still be the case.

The overriding principle is that sin is destructive, and that God protects us from thousands of dangers, all of them unseen. We just have no idea as to either the destructive power of sin or of the watchful care God provides. The great we perceive the power of sin to be, the greater we will see the power of God which prevents its destructive acts from occurring. When God does permit something like the flood to occur, it gives us a little inkling of God's power.

But it should be presented as theory.

Not as fact.

Not as a fact based on a couple of misinterpreted texts (as far as I can see).

What is dangerous is when we taking mans theories and try to make scripture fit them...

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

But it should be presented as theory.

Not as fact.

Not as a fact based on a couple of misinterpreted texts (as far as I can see).

What is dangerous is when we taking mans theories and try to make scripture fit them...

I think the part about presenting a theory as a theory is fine. When dealing with Scripture, what are "facts" is always going to be open to dispute. However, I don't think the comment about taking man's theories and try to make Scripture fit them is a fair comment, if you have in mind what sky shared. You could argue that the theory is incorrect, but it was developed from Scripture. It wasn't a theory that existed beforehand, and then the author of the theory went looking for Scriptural support for it.

[Guest]

the theory is incorrect

[Guest]

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I am sorry that I have made them. Gen 6:7

For God to say he was going to do something, and then for you to turn around and theorize away the fact that he did, and say that he didn't, is the same as calling God a liar.

I would be careful about doing that.

[pnattmbtc]

the theory is incorrect

Because?

[pnattmbtc]

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for I am sorry that I have made them. Gen 6:7

For God to say he was going to do something, and then for you to turn around and theorize away the fact that he did, and say that he didn't, is the same as calling God a liar.

I would be careful about doing that.

I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the theory, but it's easy to see your logic is wrong here. The theory could be correct, and God could still have caused the flood. He could have caused it by causing the sun to decrease its luminosity 7 fold and the moon to lose its luminosity.

To assert that this is calling God a liar is ridiculous. Even assuming your point of view, in regards to God's causing the flood, He must have caused it somehow. Does one have to say it happened exactly in accordance with how you see it to not be labeled by you as making God a liar?

I think I would be careful about making my own ideas and interpretations the standard upon which others should be judged.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

Skyblue wrote: 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.

Statement:

I have not read beyond this point.

Reason:

The foundation should always be examined before the bricks are examined.

This is both a prophecy of the future and a description of the past.

How has this been established?

Based on an interpretation of this text:

the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people

How do we know this is refering to the flood and not to the "fall of man" for instance?

Or how about the "breach of the covenant" for instance:

Num 14:34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.

I would say this is more likely a description of the restoring of the "promise" that was broken.

Not the flood.

From a very cursory examination.

Consider these as well:

1Ch 15:13 For because ye [did it] not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.

Isa 58:12 And [they that shall be] of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.

I suspect this is the "breach" of sin that Jesus repaired...

Not the flood.

Mark :-)

Bump for Pnatt...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Mark

But it should be presented as theory.

Not as fact.

Not as a fact based on a couple of misinterpreted texts (as far as I can see).

What is dangerous is when we taking mans theories and try to make scripture fit them...

I think the part about presenting a theory as a theory is fine. When dealing with Scripture, what are "facts" is always going to be open to dispute. However, I don't think the comment about taking man's theories and try to make Scripture fit them is a fair comment, if you have in mind what sky shared. You could argue that the theory is incorrect, but it was developed from Scripture. It wasn't a theory that existed beforehand, and then the author of the theory went looking for Scriptural support for it.

I have bumped my original concerns before this one pnatt.

We must test all theories.

But please remember, this is not being presented as a theory, but as "fact" as far as I can tell (please correct me if I am wrong).

Mark :-)