A Discussion of the Cause of the Flood

[teresaq]

Post # 8 The Flood (radiocarbon 14)

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....

this is great information against radiocarbon dating and evolution, sky.

thanks!!

would you mind sharing your sources? :smile:

[teresaq]

I have a short statement to make in regards to the flood.

If one looks at either Scripture, or the SOP, or creation scientists who have sought to create flood models, in all three scenarios the flood waters were precipitated by waters which were underneath the earth's crust. These waters erupted into the earth's atmosphere, and then fell back to earth. Scripture speaks of this as the waters of the depths bursting forth.

How could the waters in the depths erupt into the atmosphere? They would have had to have been under great pressure. It follows that if God was preventing these waters from erupting, but ceased doing so after 120 years of warning, then God would be acting according the principles of GC 35-37.

i have basically skimmed most of skys posts except for a couple but will go back and read more carefully.

i can see where the water in the earth was held under pressure much like the fire is now.

would you say, offhand, that skys presentation and your point could fit together?

[teresaq]

i cannot see how this would in any way deny that the judgments-decisions-of God had been fully enacted in the flood.

Gods judgments-decisions- are even now "falling" in flood, fire, hurricanes, tornados, and on and on.

Quote:

"To My Brethren in Battle Creek: I am bowed down and greatly troubled. I am in sore distress. My whole being is full of pain. At times it seems to me that I can not live. The thought of the terrible spiritual destitution among our people presses heavily upon me. God's judgments have fallen upon our institutions in Battle Creek; but how little has this done to move hearts to repentance! Must the rebuke of God still continue to be felt? and will it still continue to be without effect? I am amazed at the apparent indifference of many who should see and understand. I know not what to say or do. Seeing that the judgments of God have made so light an impression on the minds of those occupying important positions, fear and trembling take hold of me as to what will be the next revelation of God's displeasure. {RH, May 19, 1903 par. 8}

Quote:

Hos 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.

[Guest]

But it's all Satan's doing right?

[skyblue888]

In the summer of 1984 I was introduced to a man by the name of F.T. Wright. He had come from Australia to hold a series of meetings during which I became aware of one of many books he had written. This book was titled "Behold Your God." Since then I must have read it three or four times. Some chapters I have read many times. I just couln't believe my eyes as I went through all the chapters of the book, 39 of them. I had never read a book like this before and I doubt I will ever read one just like it again.

It is truly an amazing book full of insights on the character of God based on the Scriptures and the Testimonies.

In the summer of that year, he spent a week at my house. One day he told me that there was no copyright on any of his books and that I was free to quote anything from them even if I didn't give the source. This brother passed away several years ago.

Every single chapter of that book is truly a masterpiece. It is full of wisdom. It beautifully unfolds the principles of God's dealing with sin which are ever the same.

I highly recommend the book to all.

I can't find that book anywhere online so everything I have shared with you today from that book I have had to type every word. At first I almost recoiled from doing this but then I became convinced that it would be worth the time and the energy to do it in the hope that some might be blessed by reading these posts. What I have typed is only a very small fraction of what is actually found in the chapters dealing with the Flood.

Hope some of you were blessed.

sky

[teresaq]

I can't find that book anywhere online so everything I have shared with you today from that book I have had to type every word. At first I almost recoiled from doing this but then I became convinced that it would be worth the time and the energy to do it in the hope that some might be blessed by reading these posts. What I have typed is only a very small fraction of what is actually found in the chapters dealing with the Flood.

Hope some of you were blessed.

sky

try this:http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1891

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I can't find that book anywhere online so everything I have shared with you today from that book I have had to type every word. At first I almost recoiled from doing this but then I became convinced that it would be worth the time and the energy to do it in the hope that some might be blessed by reading these posts. What I have typed is only a very small fraction of what is actually found in the chapters dealing with the Flood.

Hope some of you were blessed.

sky

try this:http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1891

I just tried this link teresa and its not taking me anywhere.

sky

[BobRyan]

The Flood was caused by too much water.

g

Good one!

And "too much water" was caused by?

[Twilight]

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 :-)

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

try this:http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1891

I just tried this link teresa and its not taking me anywhere.

sky

teresa, i just tried the link this morning and it worked

thank you sooooooo much

would u share how you found that link, please

thanks again

sky

* are you acquainted with Bill and Jackie Tylor from Arkansas?

[skyblue888]

Post # 12 The Flood (Concepts Revised)

The Biblical evidences gathered so far, confirm the scientific nature of the flood. The perfect arrangement of balanced heat supply and protective mantle producing a mild and equalized climate over the earth, was critically dependent on the uniform production of heat from the sun and the moon. When that failed, the flood was inevitable.

The question now remaining is why the sun came to be dimmed and the moon extinguished. This problem solved, there will remain no difficulties in connection with God's character as it was manifested in that catastrophe. If the dimming and the extinguishing of those two bodies was God's deliberate act performed at a moment dictated by Him, then God certainly was an executioner of the sentence against transgression. He did not leave the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they had sown. He was a destroyer. Undeniably, He departed from His stated principles and resorted to measures foreign to Him and His kingdom prior to the entrance of sin.

This is, of course, the view generally adopted, together with its implications which, unfortunately, are rarely considered. If men did but contemplate the full import of what they believe, they would heartily reject many errors.

Strengthening the tendency to adopt this position, is the awareness that God has full power to extinguish the moon and dim the sun, easily and instantly. There is no possibility, need, or intention of denying this. God is possessed of infinite power. Just as by commanding and it was done, God placed those blazing orbs in the day and nighttime sky, so He could as readily put them out again. There is no contention over God's ability to be the executioner. He possessed all the power necessary and much more besides. It required Him only to speak and it would be done, to command and it would be destroyed.

The controversy is over whether He, who was in possession of such power, would use it in this way. Those who have grasped the principles laid down in this book, will understand that while God has the power to do it, He did not, because He is bound by immutable principles of righteousness not to use His might in that way. All such will praise the excellence of character which, equipped with infinite might while pressed under the severest provocation, does not retaliate. That is righteousness at its beautiful best.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Post # 13 The Flood (Concepts Revised part 2)

The story of the flood is very significant and important to me, for it was this recital, which, twenty-six years ago in 1952, first exercised my mind on the problems of understanding God's character. Prior to this I had simply accepted the traditional concepts of God's character without question, but from that time forward they became subject to serious challenge. It happened as follows:

The Sabbath School lessons of that year took the students back to the beginning of the great controversy in heaven. I studied with fascinated interest, the rise of sin in Lucifer, his opposition to God, His government and law, and the divine response to this terrible spirit of rebellion.

From the outset of my study it became increasingly and sharply clear that the struggle was not a contest instituted to prove who was physically stronger, for there could be no doubt of God's infinite superiority in this field. Neither Lucifer nor any other creature challenged this. Furthermore, had that been the issue then God could have resolved it with one overwhelming demonstration of His almighty power. It would not have been necessary to wait for almost two thousand years and then bring the flood to prove that He was physically stronger than Satan and his hosts.

I came to understand that the contest was over the respective merits of two opposing and irreconcilable systems of government, the one long established by God versus that newly espoused by Satan. God declared that His system was perfect, needed no modifications or improvements, and guaranteed for those who faithfully respected it, the permanence of eternal life, prosperity, and advancement. Satan counter-claimed that the divine order was not all it pretended to be, a point having been reached where it had ended its effective reign.

Far from being a system designed for the universal good of all, he charged, it was a master plot formulated for the special exaltation of the Father and the Son. Because of this, he insinuated, an oppressive era was about to be introduced which would increase in severity as eternity dragged on. While he admitted that up till that time conditions could not have been better, he declared that the future would certainly reveal the defects in the divine system. He agitated that it was imperative that every member of the angelic hosts stand up for themselves before they were so circumscribed by bondage that they would be powerless to assert their rights.

Satan's attack was upon the principles of God's character and thus of His government. The question was whether the established ways of God's government could emerge impeccably from subjection to the most searching test Satan could give it, or whether defects would become evident.

God was confident that it could emerge immaculate and therefore, had no hesitation in submitting it to the ultimate test. Let the devil attack and counter-attack! Let him use all the weapons of force and deception! God knew that His system would come through vindicated and perfect.

So God entered into the great controversy for which this earth and its people became the testing ground, the arena, the theatre. I recognized back there the critical importance of understanding what was under test, what was at stake, and the limitations placed upon God by His own acceptance of this challenge. God did not permit the testing of His system of government to preserve His personal honour and word, for God is not self-centred. He did it for the salvation of the creatures in His universe.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

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 :-)

Mark, there are many things in Scripture which are called by the same name and yet are different. There are two marriages, two seals, two separations, two justifications, two blotting out sins, two comings of Christ, etc etc they are called by the same name yet are different.

The breach spoken of in Isaiah 30:26 and 60:20 has to be referring to the Flood for it involves a promise to restore the sun and moon to their original brightness.

The statement in Testimonies, Vol.8, p.42 proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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 :-)

Mark, there are many things in Scripture which are called by the same name and yet are different. There are two marriages, two seals, two separations, two justifications, two blotting out sins, two comings of Christ, etc etc they are called by the same name yet are different.

The breach spoken of in Isaiah 30:26 and 60:20 has to be referring to the Flood for it involves a promise to restore the sun and moon to their original brightness.

The statement in Testimonies, Vol.8, p.42 proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

sky

Can you post the statement please Sky.

The part I am reading does not mention anything about the flood.

So I want to make sure we are talking about the same quote.

---------------------

Isa 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.

Isa 60:20 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.

I see no reference here to the flood Sky.

None at all.

In Isa 30:26 we see two important points:

1. bindeth up the breach of his people.

2. healeth the stroke of their wound.

1. Binding up the breach has been shown that it is very likely the breach of promise that was made.

2. Healing the stroke, is very likely referring to: "by his stripes we are healed".

So both the above are referring, I strongly suspect, to the breach between God and man that sin has caused.

And His subsequest sacrifice to restore that work.

I see no reason whatsoever to assign this to the flood.

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Ditto

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

try this:http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1891

I just tried this link teresa and its not taking me anywhere.

sky

hmmm, i just tried it and it took me right to it.

do a yahoo search with this, and choose #2

f t wright behold your God

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

I just tried this link teresa and its not taking me anywhere.

sky

teresa' date=' i just tried the link this morning and it worked

thank you sooooooo much

would u share how you found that link, please

thanks again

sky

* are you acquainted with Bill and Jackie Tylor from Arkansas? [/quote']oh ok well disregard my previous post then. :smile:

but in that post i shared how i got it.

no i dont know those two.

[skyblue888]

Post # 14 The Flood (Concepts Revised part 4)

I perceived that a clear distinction must be seen between the principles of God's government itself, and the personal power resident in God by which He could enforce the observance of His ways if He chose to use those methods. When this distinction is seen, it then follows that if God's principles are under test then they must stand or fall on their own merits. If the Lord should find it necessary to introduce another factor, such as the use of omnipotent power, to settle the controversy, then this would depart from His original committal to leave the principles of righteousness to stand or fall on their own merits. It would also be an admission that they were defective and could not stand by virtue of their own intrinsic qualities. It would give Satan the whole argument, for this action would prove the adversary correct in his charges.

So I emerged from studying the beginnings of the great controversy clearly understanding its legal aspects, what it was all designed to prove, and assured that God had positioned Himself where He could not interpose His omnipotent personal power to ensure that the victory was His. He had not assumed this position for the first time just to meet the issue. Eternally, He had occupied that place, but under the pressure of the test, He reaffirmed this truth with a much more clearly defined statement of His eternal principles and purposes.

My only sources in this study were the inspired writings and I emerged from them thrilled with these discoveries of truth. I had come to see and know God as I had never seen Him before, and I was exceedingly happy with the revelation.

But a few weeks later, the Sabbath School lessons moved on to the flood. Naturally, up till that time, I had held the universally accepted view that the wickedness of man had become so great, the Lord was obliged to step in with His judgmental power and wipe them out as a stern warning of what all others would likewise receive if they pursued a similar course of defiance against God.

Now, however, I found this traditionally-held view in sharp conflict with the principles of God's position in the great controversy. I was unable to reconcile the newly discovered truths revealing the legal basis of the great controversy with the view I had always unquestioningly held of God's behaviour at the flood.

On one side I could see clearly that the Father and Son had allowed the conflict to play itself out upon the stage of this earth. They had declared that the victory for the cause of righteousness must and would come by the application of its own power and rightness--not because of the interposition of omnipotent power on God's part being used to destroy the non-conforming.

But, on the other hand, it was clear that as time passed and men began to really multiply upon the face of the earth, things were going from bad to worse for God's cause. Continually, in increasing numbers, the inhabitants of the earth were joining Satan, while God's accounting finally showed only eight to His credit. Yet even among them, the loyalty was far from absolute as demonstrated by Ham's behaviour after the flood.

to be continued

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

Mark, there are many things in Scripture which are called by the same name and yet are different. There are two marriages, two seals, two separations, two justifications, two blotting out sins, two comings of Christ, etc etc they are called by the same name yet are different.

The breach spoken of in Isaiah 30:26 and 60:20 has to be referring to the Flood for it involves a promise to restore the sun and moon to their original brightness.

The statement in Testimonies, Vol.8, p.42 proves it beyond any shadow of doubt.

sky

Can you post the statement please Sky.

The part I am reading does not mention anything about the flood.

So I want to make sure we are talking about the same quote.

---------------------

Isa 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.

Isa 60:20 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.

I see no reference here to the flood Sky.

None at all.

In Isa 30:26 we see two important points:

1. bindeth up the breach of his people.

2. healeth the stroke of their wound.

1. Binding up the breach has been shown that it is very likely the breach of promise that was made.

2. Healing the stroke, is very likely referring to: "by his stripes we are healed".

So both the above are referring, I strongly suspect, to the breach between God and man that sin has caused.

And His subsequest sacrifice to restore that work.

I see no reason whatsoever to assign this to the flood.

Mark :-)

"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.

You admitted not to have taken the time to read all the posts. How can you give a rebuttal if you don't take the time to read everything?

sky

[Twilight]

"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.

You admitted not to have taken the time to read all the posts. How can you give a rebuttal if you don't take the time to read everything?

sky

I do not find anything in that quote that could even remotely apply it to the flood Sky?

You admitted not to have taken the time to read all the posts. How can you give a rebuttal if you don't take the time to read everything?

Is it not wise to start at the beginning?

I have found that when examining any idea, you should look for the central pillar of that idea.

If there are assumptions at the beginning, then you do not need to examine or go further.

The first thing to do is check and test those assumptions.

And this is what I have endeavoured to do here.

The first two texts do not relate specifically to the flood at all.

The same goes for this statement you have supplied.

Out of context quotes and texts do not prove a doctrine.

Why would anyone go further if the foundations are built on sand?

The scripture does not support this idea, if this is your main points of "proof".

So do you want to discuss these points?

Are you willing to accept that this could be a misinterpretation?

Mark :-)

[skyblue888]

Post # 15 The Flood (Concepts Revised part 5)

As I looked upon the whole problem back there, my thoughts ran along these lines. It was desperately important to God that the situation not be allowed to continue to the point where there was no one left on His side for, essential to the ultimate success of His plan, was the birth of the Redeemer through the righteous line. Should the righteous line be cut off, then God's plan must fail.

It must fail, not simply because the intention of God to save the human family would be frustrated, but because God would be deprived of the means of removing the cause of the rebellion. That cause, as has been demonstrably proved earlier in this book, was the misrepresentation of the character of God, firstly in the mind of Lucifer and later through him to the other creatures.

The only satisfactory and successful way to solve a problem is to remove the cause of it. Once the problem of sin, which is rebellion against the principles of God's government, entered the universe, all the resources of heaven were devoted to its solution. It is a mistake to limit the solution to [286] the cleansing of sin from those who will be saved, while the rest are simply left to their annihilation. The problem will not be solved until the cause has been removed from the mind of every creature who has ever come into existence including all those who will, in the end, be eternally lost.

Inasmuch as the cause of all the trouble is the misrepresentation of God's character, whilever that misconception remains in the minds of angels and men, the rebellion must continue. Therefore, to end it, that misconception must be corrected. This cannot be done merely by declarations on God's part or by the use of force. There is only one way to accomplish it. The character of God must be manifested by One Who was equal with God. Only Christ could do the work.

But it was impossible for Him to do it successfully in the perfect environment of heaven. It could be done there to a certain extent but not wholly. There is a very valid reason for this. In heaven, Satan had not developed the fulness of his attack against the character of God. It remained for him to do that on this earth. This imposed on Christ the necessity of coming right to the place where Satan was perpetrating the fulness of his lies against God and there, side by side with the character of Satan, provide the contrasting revelation of God's character. Only as men and angels were able to see both of them side by side, could the revelation of God and Satan be so fully given that the cause of the struggle could be erased from angelic and human minds.

To be continued

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

"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.

You admitted not to have taken the time to read all the posts. How can you give a rebuttal if you don't take the time to read everything?

sky

I do not find anything in that quote that could even remotely apply it to the flood Sky?

You admitted not to have taken the time to read all the posts. How can you give a rebuttal if you don't take the time to read everything?

Is it not wise to start at the beginning?

I have found that when examining any idea, you should look for the central pillar of that idea.

If there are assumptions at the beginning, then you do not need to examine or go further.

The first thing to do is check and test those assumptions.

And this is what I have endeavoured to do here.

The first two texts do not relate specifically to the flood at all.

The same goes for this statement you have supplied.

Out of context quotes and texts do not prove a doctrine.

Why would anyone go further if the foundations are built on sand?

The scripture does not support this idea, if this is your main points of "proof".

So do you want to discuss these points?

Are you willing to accept that this could be a misinterpretation?

Mark :-)

Remember what the pen of inspiration said? "When one ray of light is disregarded, there is a partial benumbing of the spiritual perceptions, and the second revealing of light is less clearly discerned." D.A.322.

sky

[skyblue888]

Post # 16 The Flood (Concepts revised part 6)

For Jesus Christ to come into this position, He must be born into the human family. He could and would not force any woman to be His mother. The one through whom He would enter the earthly arena must be absolutely willing to perform this office. We can be assured that no one who was on Satan's side would undertake such a commission. Satan knew this. Therefore, he realized that one way to secure the victory in the contest was to either win every human being over to his side, or to win all he could and then use them to exterminate the rest.

Satan was terribly afraid that if Christ did appear on the earth, He would be successful in exposing the lies he had levelled against God, with the result that he would be rejected with loathing by all the creatures whose support he so desperately sought. He knew that everything depended on his successfully preventing such a demonstration from being given. Therefore he worked with fanatical and unsleeping zeal to win as many of the human family as possible to his side and to destroy the remainder. Success in so doing would deprive God of the means whereby Christ could enter the earthly arena of battle.

Victory for Satan would have been assured at any point of time before the first advent of Christ, where he could have destroyed the righteous line. It was vital to his cause that he achieve this, while for God it was equally vital that the righteous line be preserved. Had God lost every follower to the devil, He would have been unable to bring His Son into the world, provide thereby the necessary character demonstration, unmask the deceptions of the devil and thus, by removing the cause of the rebellion, bring it to its end. Instead His kingdom would remain cursed with an ever widening and deepening scourge of rebellion.

Never did Satan come so close to absolute success in his determinations than just prior to the flood. God saw His forces of loyal followers dwindle down to a mere and doubtful eight while the devil numbered millions as his. It was all too obvious that but a short time would elapse before death and apostasy would swing the balance totally in Satan's favour.

With the future of the entire kingdom of God throughout the infinite reaches of His domains at stake, such a development placed enormous pressure upon God to step in and take direct and decisive action to save the situation from total and eternal disaster. If the traditional view of what God did at the flood is correct, then God succumbed to that pressure.

To be continued

[skyblue888]

Revelation 21:23

And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Revelation 22:5

And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

This is talking about the City, not about the new earth.

sky

[skyblue888]

Post # 17 (Concepts Revised part 7)

Back there in 1952, I saw a terrible conflict between the popular concept that God in personal judgment sent the flood upon the earth, and the truth that God has submitted His principles to stand on their own merits against the mightiest attacks the devil could make upon them. It was impossible for me to question the veracity of the truth that God and Christ had agreed to this utterly fair and proper contest between their principles and those the devil wished to introduce.

I realized that if God and Christ had entered into such a plan, and then, sixteen centuries later, when things had moved to the brink of disaster for Them, They had organized the flood, They must have gone into conference and reasoned as follows:

"In the beginning We agreed and announced that We would permit the principles of righteousness to be subjected to the severest tests the devil could place upon them. We went on record as testifying that those principles are so perfect and complete that they are immortal and cannot be destroyed. We averred that there was no need to introduce super-power weapons to force a conclusion favourable to Us. But things are turning so badly against Us that if We do not step in now with Our infinite power and curb the onrush of Satan and his people, all will be loss to Us and gain to him. Therefore the situation now developed demands that We arise and do something. What shall it be?"

Popular theology asserts that the Lord then stepped in with the flood to thoroughly curb the advancement of Satan's cause. He wiped out Satan's forces to the last individual and so savaged the earth that it was never the same again.

If this is what God did, then He made a complete farce of the original statement of willingness to submit the case to fair contest and of His expression of confidence that the principles of righteousness could survive such a test. It would appear that He started out in the hope that they would; viewed with growing dismay the turning of the tide against Him; held out till the last possible moment, and then found Himself obliged to resort to the use of His limitless powers to contain the rebellion within certain limits.

To be continued