"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Robert]

I agree with you. However, a lot of people think of God as a someone who won't ever destroy sinners in what Jesus called "the gehenna of fire." They think that if God were to do that, it would mean He changed. But not so. His destruction of the wicked will be the result of His mercy and His agape-love.

Oh, but that you could see the blaring contradiction!

How can God "agape" His enemies and yet keep them living in torture until some part of them is completely consumed? That's not love! Would not humans manifesting this personality split be considered psychotic?

John, you and others who push this God who destroys...who tortures...who does as He pleases - even breaking His own law, are in gross darkness concerning the character of God.

"For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory [His agape] shall be seen upon thee."

[Lutz13]

Aren't you guys dizzy yet?

[Guest]

No Richard, this isn't the point. The point is that inspiration often presents God as doing that which he permits.

Often? Or every single time?

You see in order to make it an absolute universal principle like you are going so far out of your way to do. It would have to be every single time. Because if it's not every single time then you don't know when the "principle" applies and when it doesn't. And there's no way it could be universal.

That means God would have had to say He killed Abel instead of "Cain killed Abel" Did He do this? No, of course not. He had nothing to do with the killing of Abel. Why would He say something that wasn't true? In the case of Saul and the one or two other cases you point to, He actually did have something to do with it. He was not just taking the blame because he allowed it, as you say.

In order for this to be a universal principle as you say. That God takes the blame for everything he allows, you would have to show complete consistency. Otherwise it is just you deciding when to use the principle and when not to use the principle.

Did God kill Agag? NO! Did he claim to have killed Agag? Did he take credit for it in any way? No. Samuel killed Agag:

Did God take credit for it when David had Uriah the Hittite killed? NO.

Did God take credit for it when Moses killed the egyptian? Not at all!

Your universal principle isn't holding up too well. We could show this principle not working, over and over and over. We could go through the entire Bible doing this.

And it would show that it is in NO WAY the DEFAULT position, for God to take credit for everything He allows. In fact the two or three cases you can point to, are an anomaly. Far far from being a universal principle.

To call this a universal principle is absurd and ludicrous at best. It's actually worse than that, because you are misrepresenting God, and calling him a liar.

[BobRyan]

Given enough time on this thread - those who do not like what Rev 20 and Malachi 4 and GC 673 and EW 294 say -- will eventually ask a question "AS IF" those documents did not exist - and the content found in those documents was simply "imagined" by those who actually read and accept the documents.

Something like this --

It amazes me that on the one hand you can write this, and on the other think that God will set people on fire to make them suffer torture for days at a time. This is certainly not Jesus Christ!

[Guest]

Bob, they think their universal principle makes all that straight talk from the prophet null and void. Why did God bother to have her waste her time?

[BobRyan]

"The men who prompty and speedily executed the divine judgments upon those heathen nations have been pronounced harsh and unmerciful in destroying so many human lives. But all who reason thus, fail to understand the character and dealings of God. In His infinite mercy, the Lord had long spared those idolatrous nations, giving them evidence upon evidence that He, the mighty Jehovah, was the God whom they should serve. He had commanded Moses not to make war upon Moab or Midian, for their cup of iniquity was not yet full. Additional evidence was to be given... When, at the suggestion of Balaam, the snare was laid for Israel, which resulted in the destruction of thousands, then it was that the Midianites filled up the measure of their inquities. Then their day of probation ended, and the door of mercy was to them closed and the MANDATE went forth FROM HIM who can create and can destroy...

"... leave to the Lord to deal with the work of His hands according to His own wise purposes...

"God's method of dealing with sin is not in harmony with the views cherished by a large class who occupy a prominent position among the professed followers of Christ. Many of these men cheerish sin, and laud the benevolence and long-suffering of God, and dwell upon the loving character of Jesus,-- all mercy, all tenderness,-- while they pass over the threatenings of God's wrath against sin and sinners, and our Savior's scathing denunciations of hypocrisy and self-deception. It is those who have not a keen sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin and are ready to question the justice of God in punishing with such severity the sins of the Amalekites, Canaanites, and Midianites. Those who love sin are unable to comprehend God's dealings with His subjects...

"...God is merciful and compassionate, but He is also just. Let the cross of Calvary forever settle this matter. As surely as Christ, the guiltless, suffered for the guilty, so surely will the wrath of God fall upon the heads of those who persist in their transgression of His law." ST, Jan. 6, 1881.

"The whole universe will have become witnesses to the nature and results of sin. And its utter extermination, which in the beginning would have brought fear to angels and dishonor to God, will NOW [at the time of the final destruction of the wicked] vindicate His love and establish His honor before the universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law." GC 504.

"God executes justice upon the wicked, for the good of the universe, and even for the good of all those upon whom His judgments are visited... It is in mercy to the universe that God will finally destroy the rejectors of His grace." GC 541, 543.

John - good points all! That is a keeper!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Bob, they think their universal principle makes all that straight talk from the prophet null and void. Why did God bother to have her waste her time?

[BobRyan]

Ahh yes - I see.

Good points - God did not "take the credit" for every one who gets killed in the Bible as you point out.

Though I think that God would argue that in the case of Samuel killing Agag - God ordered it.

In the case of HIS killing the families of Korah and the 250 false priests -- it is pretty hard to pin that one on Moses the way the rebellious Israelites did.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

No I was talking about the egyptian soldier.

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. EX 2:11,12

[Guest]

Though I think that God would argue that in the case of Samuel killing Agag - God ordered it.

That makes my point even more. Even though God ordered it, the Bible says Samuel did it. It should say "God did it" according to the principle.

[Guest]

Quote:

If God hadn't created Lucifer we would have no sin, but since God allowed sin to develop He assumes the blame.

Absolutely NOT. Nothing could be further from the truth. God does NOT take the blame for sin upon himself.

Look at what the prophet says:

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God was in no wise responsible for the entrance of sin; {GC 492}

Quote:

Since He is sovereign He describes Himself as actually doing what He has allowed

No He doesn't. Only in a couple of rare cases can this possibly be shown. Nothing on a scale that would warrant calling this a universal principle.

And even then, as in the case of Saul, God actually did have a hand in Saul's death.

You see in order to make it an absolute universal principle like you say, you would have to show consistency. If you can't show this principle being consistent in the way it works, then there's no way it could even be a principle, much less universal.

That means God would have had to say He killed Abel instead of "Cain killed Abel" Did He do this? No, of course not. He had nothing to do with the killing of Abel. Why would He say something that wasn't true?

In order for this to be a universal principle as you say. That God takes the blame for everything he allows, you would have to show complete consistency. Otherwise it is just you deciding when to use the so called "principle" and when not to use the "principle".

Did God kill Agag? NO! Did he claim to have killed Agag? Did he take credit for it in any way? No. Samuel killed Agag. And even though God ordered Agag's death, the Bible says Samuel killed Agag.

Did God take credit for it when David had Uriah the Hittite killed? NO.

Did God take credit for it when Moses killed the egyptian who was beating the Hebrew? Not at all! In fact it set Moses back forty years.

Your universal principle isn't holding up too well. I could show this principle not working, over and over and over. I could go through the entire Bible doing this.

And it would show that it is in NO WAY the DEFAULT position, for God to take credit for everything He allows. In fact the two or three cases you can point to, are an anomaly. Far far from being a universal principle.

[Robert]

If God hadn't created Lucifer we would have no sin, but since God allowed sin to develop He assumes the blame.

[Robert]

Why does God say that He "was aroused against Israel and He [God] moved David . . . to . . . number Israel" when it was "Satan [who] stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel"? Yes?

Why did God say that "He [God] killed him [saul]" when clearly "Saul took a sword and fell on it"?

Why did God say that "I will harden his heart" when again clearly "Pharoah hardened his [own] heart"?

Why did God say, "I...will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt" when clearly it was "the destroyer"?

Why did God say "I will strike the Shepherd [Jesus]" when clearly God had "forsaken" Him, i.e., He was not present.

Why does God say that He "sends... a powerful delusion" to those who reject the truth when clearly it is "lying wonders...and every kind of deception" from Satan through the man of sin?

Why does God state that He "maketh the dumb", "deaf" and " blind" when clearly His creation of mankind was "fearfully and wonderfully made" so that even David said, "Wonderful are your works"?

Why did God tell Satan that "you (Satan) incited Me [God] against him [Job] to destroy him without cause" when it was clearly Satan who caused all of Job's problems (see Job 1:12)?

[Tammy]

Bob, they think their universal principle makes all that straight talk from the prophet null and void. Why did God bother to have her waste her time?

You hit the nail on the head....

[Tammy]

There are always "reasons" why people believe and teach false doctrine... For instance people like to believe one dies and goes right to Heaven, because it "sounds so nice"...even though it isn't true. I think the same holds here...they want to think that God will not destroy them...inspite of the clear Bible and Spirit of Prophecy statements to the contrary.

[Robert]

Answer: "I [God] will abandon them, hiding my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Terrible trouble will come down on them, so that they will say, 'These disasters have come because God is no longer among us!'

God's so called wrath is passive....God's wrath is not the same as sinful, human wrath.

When humans get angry they exhibit "fits of rage" and "their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their paths."

But God's wrath is the result (hence passive) of one's unbelief. When rejected God simply abandons the unbeliever and then trouble follows. He doesn't cause the trouble, rather it the result of not having God around.

Why does God abandon the persistent unbeliever? Because "agape" cannot force and cannot coerce. God will not force Himself on you if you insist on rejecting Him.

Rob

[Robert]

they want to think that God will not destroy them...inspite of the clear Bible and Spirit of Prophecy statements to the contrary.

Jesus: Luke 9: 55 [The disciples to Jesus] "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them."

God is not in business of destruction. He came to bring life and life more abundant. Satan and sin are the destroyers. When unbelief is persistently cherished God removes Himself from that person and trouble follows. Anyone who maintains that God kills...that God does what He forbids humans to do is of the spirit of Satan, period!

Rob

[Robert]

"I [God] will abandon them, hiding my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Terrible trouble will come down on them, so that they will say, 'These disasters have come because God is no longer among us!'

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.

Did God do it? Did He rain down sulfur from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah? Or did God abandon these cities? The later....

"Now the Valley of Siddim was full of asphalt ['bitumen,' RSV] pits" (Genesis 14:10), suggesting some type of igneous activity occurring within the earth's crust. Today "the shores around the Dead Sea are covered with lava, sulfur, and rock salt. Gases escape from the surface of the water" (World Book Encyclopedia, 1954, Vol. 4, p. 1891). Note the existence in this scenario of all the ingredients necessary to destroy these cities in a great fiery conflagration. Bitumen, asphalt, oil, gas even salt to turn Lot's wife into a pillar. Another name for "brimstone," which Scripture says God "rained" upon these cities is sulfur, a major export of this region today. One need only consider the swiftness with which the ancient city of Pompeii met its doom via volcano to know something similar could have happened to these cities in such a volatile location. [Taken from "Light on the Dark Side of God"]

[Robert]

Why did God bother to have her waste her time?

Maybe one reason God gave her to the SDA is to bring out idolatry from its hiding places. EGW has been lifted upon a platform the she was never intended for....It's a form of idolatry. Other Christians view Traditional, Historic SDA as a cult.

Keep in the mind the following:

Do not think that, because we have a glimmer of the light of God, that we have it all.--Ms. 3, 1889, pp. 1-3. (Morning Talk at Ottawa, Kansas, May 14, 1889.)

Definition of a "glimmer":

1 a : to shine faintly or unsteadily

b : to give off a subdued unsteady reflection

2 : to appear indistinctly with a faintly luminous quality

When you build your whole theology on "a glimmer", well, you get into error....Error like God kills...He does what He wants...He is not obligated to His own law and such nonsense and heresy as this....

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

... And we are not dealing with an unspecific subject as the Jews here, but specifically the church or the “New Covenant” people of Yahweh, which qualifies the time depicted not as when Satan was cast out of paradise, but when paganism and Satan were dealt a sever defeat by the advent of Christ and this is why he pronounced that he saw Satan fall from heaven, or high places of authority (Ephesians 6:12). The comparative texts in both testaments simply do not support that the stars in Revelation 12 represent fallen angels but more appropriately support that they represent the sons and daughters that Satan casts down through the power of Rome under Constantine and later the Papacy.

In Rev. 1: 20, the apostle John defines "the stars" as representing angels.

I don't believe your interpretation is correct here, but I can see why you believe as you do. This passage of the Apocolypse has been variously understood, and a number of good commentators are close to your view.

However, when it comes to the translation of Rev. 12: 4, there is no evidence whatsoever that it should be translated any other way than, "the third of the stars."

Can you name a single competant translator who has rendered it any other way? It can be translated only as "a third [part] of the stars," "the third [part] of the stars," or "a third of the stars." But never "the third star" or "the three stars."

Weren’t you the one insisting that the “seven stars” of Revelation 1 were “men”? As to “competent translators” my response is that Yahweh has rarely used the “intellectuals” of the “existing order” to relay His messages. Clearly the overwhelming evidence reveals that the stars in Revelation 12 are the sons and daughters of Sion. We can’t have Satan casting down his demons because that would be a house divided. The context concerns the New Covenant people and that makes the event of Satan cast out of paradise not even relevant. Clearly the texts relates the event when paganism and Satan were dealt a sever defeat by the advent of Christ and this is why Christ pronounced that he saw Satan fall from heaven, or the high places of authority (Ephesians 6:12). The comparative texts in both testaments simply do not support that the stars in Revelation 12 represent fallen angels but more appropriately support that they represent the sons and daughters that Satan casts down through the power of Rome under Constantine and later the Papacy.

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

Then it is true that overwhelmingly the translation of to tritos means something sequential and not proportional.

Yes, of course. That is because of the rules of Greek grammar and of translation. The construction of the phrases referring to things sequential are different from those describing amounts of something.

What you appear not to understand is that "to tritos" NEVER signifies something sequential when it is in the accusative case and precedes a genitive noun. This applies to Rev. 12: 4. ton asteron is genitive plural masculine. It is possessive and is here translated, "of the stars."

The accusative adjective, to tritos, plus the genitive noun, ton asteron, can only be translated "the third of the stars."

Please study closely the following texts in any published translation:

Rev. 8: 7-- a third of the trees

8: 8-- a third of the seas

8: 9-- a third of the creatures

8: 9-- a third of the ships

8: 10-- a third of the rivers

8: 11-- a third of the waters

8: 12-- a third of the sun

v. 12-- a third of the moon

v. 12-- a third of the stars

v. 12-- a third of them (the stars)

v. 12-- a third of it (the day)

Rev. 9:15-- "a third of the men"

9: 18-- "a third of men"

12: 4-- "a third of the stars"

Why do you think that ALL translations render these the same way? I have over 65 translations of the book of Revelation, and every last one of them translates the above phrases the same way.

As a beginning student of Koine Greek, you should try to find out why they translate them as they do, and if necessary check out some Greek grammar text-books.

Can you find someone who teaches NT at a near-by university and ask them to explain why it's correct to translate Rev. 12: 4 as "a third of the stars" and why it is correct to translate the first part of Rev. 8: 4 as "the fourth angel"?

Quote:

It is arbitrary as to its use as a portion of something in Revelation 8:7, 12.Biblos.com translates the aforementioned in Revelation 8:12 as an adjective - nominative singular neuter, also meaning sequential.

Yes, of course. That is what I said:

Quote:

Why is it always translated as "the third of the stars"? Because that is the only possibility. "Stars" is a genitive plural noun. "To triton" is an accustive adjective.

By contrast, "to triton" in Rev. 4: 7 is nominative, as is also its noun, Zoo-on, which means "animal," or "living creature."

Notice that in Rev. 8: 12, "the fourth angel" is ho tetartos aggelos. All three words are in the nominative case.

Now look at the phrase "a third of the sun." The Greek is: to triton tou heliou. Notice that the adjective to triton is nominative singular neuter. Then also notice that tou heliou is in the genitive case. Can you see how that is different from the construction of ho tetartos aggelos? The latter, "the third angel," is a nominative adjective followed by a nominative noun; whereas in the phrase to triton tou heliou, you have a nominative adjective, triton, followed by the noun, heliou, in the genitive case.

Do you understand the function of the various cases? If you do not, none of this will make much sense to you.

By the way, how important to your interpretation of Rev. 12 is the idea that Rev. 12: 4 is describing sequence rather than size or proportion? Would your interpretation be proven wrong if Rev. 12: 4 can only be translated as "third of the stars"?

I have to go to bed now but I'll be back later in the day tomorrow to continue our discussion. If you like we can study together every instance of the word tritos in the NT.

Sorry about being tardy in my response but I’ve been away from my computer on a project and the one I have access to is like trying to use stone tools and implements so I thought I’d wait until the week-end to respond, back at home. First I want to thank you for your offer of assistance concerning the convention (the koine Greek) but I’ve rarely had difficulties grasping such rules. Comprehension has never been a great challenge concerning such matters for me. To me the greater test lies not in the analytical disciplines but those concerning the intuitive.

That being said I’ve found that your summary is untenable! In Revelation 6:1 you’ll find a complete departure from your assertions concerning the order of the first seal: “the first of the seven seals.” Clearly a sequence of events is portrayed and the adjective “first”, mian in the Greek, is in the form of an accusative-singular-feminine used to modify the noun, seals, which is a genitive-plural-neuter. Additionally, in Revelation 13:3 we have the phrase “one of the heads" to denote a social order that follows another as opposed to any proportional division and the same grammatical rules are observed. Again mian is an adjective in the accusative-singular-feminine used to modify the noun, heads, which is in the genitive-plural-feminine case. And there are more examples in the NT. Clearly your assertions are untenable.

But I must remonstrate at this juncture that concerning the interpretation of scripture the intuitive transcends the analytical. The Spirit guides man through inspiration and we interpret by adding our conventions of language and its rules; the prophets wrote in this manner. Consequently the latter is subject to question while the former leads. It was by inspiration that I began to question the conventional views of Revelation 12, which have their roots in Catholic doctrine. Not that Catholic doctrine is always wrong, but in this case their analyzation is dubious for the varied reasons I’ve already revealed.

[Michaeneu]

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CROSS IS HOW GOD WINS GREAT CONTROVERSY AGAINST SATAN, NOT THROUGH FORCE BUT THROUGH OPENNESS AND TRUTH. God didn't win the war against Him by force. His expulsion of Satan and the other evil angels from heaven didn't win the war against Satan. It merely transferred the war and the rebellion from heaven to earth. This is what I've been saying ever since my first post on this thread.

The war in heaven described in v. 7 was regarding the transference of authority and rule to Christ. This is what Satan opposed and made war against. Ellen White says Satan wished to conquer the Son of God.

But verse 7 has noting to do with the rebellion in paradise. The text is strictly about what happened after the cross and the stars cast down represent the war of ideas for the high places of authority upon this earth. I would have to side with sky, pnatt and Robert that the previous casting out, which is not even the subject of the aforementioned text, was not by force but that Satan and his disciples merely found the ground under them withdrawn and they fell to earth, metaphorically speaking. Yahweh doesn't use the means of Satan but merely withdraws His protection or allows evil to ultimately consume itself, just as when Yahweh confused the forces that came against Gideon and his small band and they turned against themselves. The war in paradise was of ideas and it commenced immediately upon iniquity being found in Satan and his spreading that anti-gospel of iniquity; EGW or Catholic doctrines not withstanding.

[Guest]

There are always "reasons" why people believe and teach false doctrine... For instance people like to believe one dies and goes right to Heaven, because it "sounds so nice"...even though it isn't true. I think the same holds here...they want to think that God will not destroy them...inspite of the clear Bible and Spirit of Prophecy statements to the contrary.

This bunch here wants to believe it so badly that they have made up their own little rule. And use it where ever it's needed to uphold their preferred view. They call it a "universal principle". The problem with that is, that in order for it to be what they say it is, they would need to show consistency with it. (which of course they cannot do) Otherwise they're just using it selectively, where THEY see fit.

They point to a few cases where God seems to take the blame for something He didn't do, and instead of trying to figure out why He did that, they just say: "Look! This must be a "universal principle". We can apply this to whatever we like. The entire Bible if need be". And they don't stop there either. They then apply it to the plain statements of Ellen White!

Of course this is a joke to anyone who bothers to take the time to think it through.

Nowhere in the Bible or the writings of EGW, does it speak of such a principle that is to be used across the board in that manor. To change the plain meaning of scripture and prophetic writings.

[Robert]

They point to a few cases where God seems to take the blame for something He didn't do,

Seems? He is assuming the blame. Open your eyes and get out of your traditional understanding of God, for if you remain you will become more like your version of God. Not good!

[Robert]

deleted