"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[Guest]

I think she was thinking that Satan misrepresents God's character by making Him appear to be cruel.

[Robert]

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things? Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

[Guest]

So you aren't afraid of your version of God?

Absolutely not. First of all, it's not my version. I simply believe what the Bible says about the subject. Now if I had to omit or disregard portions, or explain certain parts away, in order to arrive at my belief. Then I would be afraid. Because the Bible doesn't mince words about what will happen to those who do that.

For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:18,19

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things? Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

No, just mistaken....She wasn't infallible, remember?

Quote:

I believe what she says, and I have no fear, dread, ...towards God.

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law....God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty. [EGW]

So you aren't afraid of your version of God?

Why would you quote someone who you think was in error? In your mind, aren't you trying to prove truth by using falsehood? Isn't that dishonest?

If anyone sees you quoting the same person that you claim is in error, you loose any credibility you may have had.

[Robert]

Why would you quote someone who you think was in error?

Answer the question...after all you believe what she says....that's all that matters. Yes?

[Guest]

I already did. Try reading the first post on this page.

[teresaq]

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things? Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

[Guest]

If God hadn't created the earth, we wouldn't be here. What's your point?

Are you trying to prove your case by what if?

Ellen White's statements on the matter are plain and straight forward. And to anyone who believes her writings, they are irrefutable.

If she said we should take the Bible as it reads, then I know she didn't mean for us to turn her statements upside down and make them say the opposite.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

What was Ellen White thinking when she wrote those things? Do you think part of her writings were inspired by Satan?

No, just mistaken....She wasn't infallible, remember?

Quote:

I believe what she says, and I have no fear, dread, ...towards God.

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law....God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty. [EGW]

So you aren't afraid of your version of God?

Robert we agree on this issue but i dont agree with the way you read these statements from Mrs. White. She uses the same language that is used in the Bible when describing God's actions but in other statments are found the principles by which this language is to be interpreted. The Bible does the very same thing.

When it is said that "the wrath of God abideth on them," we know that it simply means that there comes the time when God has no choice but to withdraw His restraining power and the sinner is left without any control over the evil passions of the soul or without any protection from the malice and malignity of Satan. Now His restraining power is not removed from the sinner all at once but in a measure at first and then in a greater measure until it is fully removed if he persists in resisting the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate many of your comments but some of your comments about what Mrs. White has written show a lack of discernment. I know that you have seen and read all the statements that have been quoted from her writings which show that the God who inspired her is the living God who does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression but leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown, that His judgments do not come directly out from the Lord upon the disobedient but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection.

In that letter she wrote to her boy in which she talks about God hating disobedient little boys, or something like that, I believe she used the same language found in the Bible where God says that He hated Esau but loved Jacob. In Romans 9 I believe it is. Many times in her writings she does say that God hates sin but loves the sinner, that His love for the sinner is stronger than death. So we need to be careful how we read the Bible and her writings. Both are not subject to any private interpretation.

"How readest thou?"

sky

[pnattmbtc]

I think she was thinking that Satan misrepresents God's character by making Him appear to be cruel.

No you're wrong pnat, she isn't saying anything about Satan representing or misrepresenting anything.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda), quoting Ellen White:

It is beyond the power of the human mind to estimate the evil which has been wrought by the heresy of eternal torment. The religion of the Bible, full of love and goodness, and abounding in compassion, is darkened by superstition and clothed with terror. When we consider in what false colors Satan has painted the character of God, can we wonder that our merciful Creator is feared, dreaded, and even hated? The appalling views of God which have spread over the world from the teachings of the pulpit have made thousands, yea, millions, of skeptics and infidels. {4SP 356.2}....

There's a big difference between "endless torment in hell" and "suffering the penalty of one's sins" and immediately afterward passing into oblivion. This is how the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach it. The Bible most definitely says that the wicked will be burned up and utterly destroyed; and the Spirit of prophecy concurs completely.

Will the death of the wicked be very unpleasant and even painful? Yes, of course. This is shown clearly in the Gospels themselves, as well as in may other portions of Scripture. There are many reasons that one should oppose the teaching of "endless or eternal torment," but the best reason for rejecting it simply that the Bible does not contain it. It is contrary to the plainest doctrines of the Bible.

Another good reason, as Mrs. White points out, is that it makes people think of God as a God who does not love people since he torments them for an eternity because of a relatively short life of sin. In other words, if humans suffer endlessly in hell, the punishment is out of all proportion to the crime.

The Bible and SOP show that Christ will make the punishment exactly fit the deeds.

Therefore some will suffer longer than others because the rewards are based on one's deeds--- just as Jesus Himself taught. Ellen White specifically and clearly says that Satan will continue to suffer long after the rest of the wicked have ceased to exist. She says some will "suffer many days" while others die as if in a moment.

Ellen White is speaking in the above paragraph about such things as the teaching found in the famous sermon, "Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God," which influenced a great many people to see God as a tyrant who fries people in hell without any respite for all of eternity. That is much different from the way the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach.

Some people don't see a difference between endless suffering in hell and the punishment of a temporary suffering for one's sins, but there is no support for this in Adventist teachings or in either the Bible or the writings of Ellen White.

I think it's important to consider that the paragraphs she wrote against eternal torment in hell occur in the very same book in which Ellen White wrote that Satan and some of the wicked will suffer many days. Therefore, it is self-evident that Ellen White did not view the temporary suffering of the wicked as on the same level as those statements of hers regarding everlasting torment in the fires of hell.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): .....there would have been no reformation, nor seventh-day adventist church if the reformers and pioneers had accepted the understanding of their brethern on "clear" statements on the state of the dead and eternal torment, right?

You're right that it's important not to accept a teaching just because others-- even perhaps everyone else-- believes it. We're to study on our own with the Holy Spirit as our guide and teacher. It's not enough, for instance, to believe the 2300 day prophecy because the SDA church teaches it. One must study it rigorously and deeply for oneself and come to a personal conviction of it on the basis of study and prayer, so that one knows the biblical reasons for his belief.

The clearest statements in the Bible show that the dead are unconscious and "sleep" their graves until the resurrection. There's not a single text which says humans are immortal or have an immortal spirit or soul that survives the death of the body. The opposite is true: that is, the clearest statements show that man is mortal and returns to dust when he dies.

When it comes to the state of the dead, it's unfortunate that the unclear statementss are ofen preferred above the clear statements, which is the wrong way to study the Bible. If one verse says the "dead do not know anything," or that the soul dies, it is not reasonable to conclude that an unclear verse teaches that the dead actually know more than the living or that the soul never dies. The verses that some say teach the immortality of the soul-- such as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man-- can best be understood when viewed as being in harmony with the rest of the Bible's teaching on that topic. Otherwise, the Bible seems to teach two contrary views of human nature.

James White and Joseph Bates came out of denominations that rejected the immortality of the soul and an eternally burning hell. But they, along with many other Adventists, studied the writings of George Storrs, a Millerite preacher who wrote pamphlets on the state of man in death. William Miller himself rejected the teachings of George Storrs on this subject, but others, who made up the future SDA church, accepted the teachings of Storrs regarding the dead.

Quote:

but instead they studied and dug deeper. you and others seem to want to say, dont. just take the surface reading and go no further.

It's very important for us to dig deeper, but "deeper" will not make the language mean just the opposite of what it plainly says. Some people believe that the deeper they study, the more they see that the SDA doctrine on the heavenly sanctuary is in error, or that SDAs are wrong about the Sabbath, or any other number of doctrines.

Some there are who say that Job was actually a self-righteous sinner who needed to learn a lesson about his self-centeredness, and that this is the reason for Job's suffering. But that doesn't make sense. Both the narrator and God Himself describe Job as being "perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil."

Yet instead of accepting those verses as describing the truth about Job, there are some whose "deeper reading" results in changing the words of God to signify the exact opposite of what God said. For these people, God did not tell the truth about Job but instead God is merely reflecing Job's self-righteous, sinful thoughts and feelings regarding himself. Ellen White says this is precisely what Satan did in heaven; he would twist everything God said, and make it appear mysterious and quite different from God's word.

Quote:

so how would that make you guys different from those who have gone before and tried to stop others from digging deeper?

But it's not digging deeper to conclude that the words of the Bible and Ellen White don't mean what they say. That would be like concluding after a long study that Christ doesn't mean the Sabbath was made to benefit all mankind but that it was made for the Jews only.

Ellen White herself said that we're to accept plain, clear "thus saith the Lord."

Beware of those who say, "Well, yes, that sentence does say the dead do not know anything, but that isn't true." Or, "Yes, you are right that it says fire comes down from God out of heaven and consumes the wicked, but God will do no such thing. He is too loving." Or: "Yes, God said you will die if you eat the fruit, but actually you won't die. That's just the surface meaning, but if you dig deeper...."

There's a difference between using good Bible principles of interpretation-- letting it interpret itself, studying context, and looking at parallel passages-- and putting one's own interpretation on the Bible so that it means the exact opposite of the ordinary way of understanding the language.

The Bible for the most part is written in common speech, not in some special vocabulary. Sure, there's symbolic language in some of the prophecies, and those naturally have to be interpretated by the keys that the Bible itself provides. But in most of the other parts of the Bible, the meaning is fairly straight-forward. Ellen White herself talks about how the priests and false teachers try to make everything mysterious so that no one can understand the Bible except those who speak its special language.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Robert:So you aren't afraid of your version of God?

Richard:Absolutely not. First of all, it's not my version. I simply believe what the Bible says about the subject.

None of us has all the truth. None of us has perfect understanding of the Bible. If we think "My view = Bible" how can God reach us if we're in error? Any voice we here telling us something different than we believe, we'll simply reject, because it must be wrong, since it's different than my view, which = the Bible.

Quote:

If she said we should take the Bible as it reads, then I know she didn't mean for us to turn her statements upside down and make them say the opposite.

Here's something she wrote:

Quote:

This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.

At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand this. Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. (DA 764)

This is very clear. So is this:

Quote:

Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. (DA 759)

Yet you don't accept these statements as they read, rather "turn them upside down."

There are many other similar statements. You simply reject them without explanation, and keep the ones you like, making no attempt whatsoever to harmonize "your quotes" with the ones you reject.

You don't offer any argument for the positions you take. You insist you are right because "this is what it says."

Is it your intent to be caustic and mean-spirited in your remarks? Do you wish to instill an atmosphere of contention, as opposed to Christian fellowship? Do you intend to write as if you felt the people you are writing to were enemies, and you would like to harm them if you could? Do you want people to respond to you with anger and hate?

Do you have any feelings of warmth to your fellow posters?

[pnattmbtc]

I appreciate many of your comments but some of your comments about what Mrs. White has written show a lack of discernment.

I agree with this. Additionally there is a lack of discernment in making negative comments about Ellen White to the audience you are addressing. This only hurts the cause you are representing.

That is, your views are very similar to that which sky and I have been sharing, yet we substantiate our views from the SOP. When you make derogatory remarks about the SOP, you're harming what sky and I are trying to share from her writings. I think it would be far superior to simply make your arguments from Scripture and remain silent in regards to Ellen White. I think you should think of the greater good, which is to present a position you believe is true in a way where it's most likely to gain an audience.

[pnattmbtc]

There's a big difference between "endless torment in hell" and "suffering the penalty of one's sins" and immediately afterward passing into oblivion. This is how the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach it. The Bible most definitely says that the wicked will be burned up and utterly destroyed; and the Spirit of prophecy concurs completely.

Will the death of the wicked be very unpleasant and even painful? Yes, of course. This is shown clearly in the Gospels themselves, as well as in may other portions of Scripture. There are many reasons that one should oppose the teaching of "endless or eternal torment," but the best reason for rejecting it simply that the Bible does not contain it. It is contrary to the plainest doctrines of the Bible.

Another good reason, as Mrs. White points out, is that it makes people think of God as a God who does not love people since he torments them for an eternity because of a relatively short life of sin. In other words, if humans suffer endlessly in hell, the punishment is out of all proportion to the crime.

The Bible and SOP show that Christ will make the punishment exactly fit the deeds.

Therefore some will suffer longer than others because the rewards are based on one's deeds--- just as Jesus Himself taught. Ellen White specifically and clearly says that Satan will continue to suffer long after the rest of the wicked have ceased to exist. She says some will "suffer many days" while others die as if in a moment.

Ellen White is speaking in the above paragraph about such things as the teaching found in the famous sermon, "Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God," which influenced a great many people to see God as a tyrant who fries people in hell without any respite for all of eternity. That is much different from the way the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach.

Some people don't see a difference between endless suffering in hell and the punishment of a temporary suffering for one's sins, but there is no support for this in Adventist teachings or in either the Bible or the writings of Ellen White.

I think it's important to consider that the paragraphs she wrote against eternal torment in hell occur in the very same book in which Ellen White wrote that Satan and some of the wicked will suffer many days. Therefore, it is self-evident that Ellen White did not view the temporary suffering of the wicked as on the same level as those statements of hers regarding everlasting torment in the fires of hell.

I think you've completely missed the point. Yes, it would be cruel for God to torture the wicked for all eternity by setting them on fire to burn forever. But it's also cruel for God to torture them for many days by setting them on fire. Just because these are not "on the same level" doesn't mean they aren't both bad, and don't both present God as being cruel.

[Robert]

I already did. Try reading the first post on this page.

So, you are performing "Complete obedience" because if not, according to EGW, "the wrath of God abideth on" you. Shouldn't that scare you?

[John317]

Just back from the hospital where I've been all day. I found some very important material relevant to the subject of this thread.

Have you read the compilation of Ellen White's writings, entitled, The Truth About Angels?

I believe anyone who reads it thoughtfully will see proof that Ellen White did NOT teach that God WON'T destroy the wicked by fire.

I will post quite a few of these quotes.

I think the only conclusion that people will come to is that either she was inspired and God did in fact use force at times and that God will really destroy the wicked in fire-- or else they will conclude that Ellen White was just wrong about these things. But no one who reads these sentences and understands English can reasonably conclude that she is saying God never used force and that He won't destroy the wicked in fire.

Let me give you here just a few examples out of many that occur in this wonderful book:

1) God told Enoch of His plan to destroy the world with a flood. p. 66.

2) Adam was compelled to leave the Garden. "Holy angels were sent to drive out the disobedient pair from the garden, while other angels guarded the way of the tree of life from the approach of Satan and the guilty pair." p. 62. On page 61, she says they were "expelled," the same word she uses in regard to the thrusting out of Satan from heaven.

3)Angels of God removed the chariot wheels of the Egyptian soldiers as they went into the Red Sea. The Egyptians were trying to get out of the Red Sea and return to the shore, but before they could do so, God made the water rush in and "swallow the Egyptian army." p. 96.

4) It was Christ Himself who said He was giving Jericho into Joshua's hand, along with the king and all the mighty men of valor. p. 110. The angels and Christ "led in the attack on Jericho." p. 111. Elsewhere (3 T 264) Mrs. White says that the angels of God took hold of the walls and brought them to the ground. The whole city was slaughtered, except for Rahab and those in her house. This is exactly what the Bible teaches as well. Compare Joshua 6: 2, 16-25.

5) Angels of God were sent to do work of destruction. pp. 119, 127, 128, 241.

"Angels of God fought by the side of Jonathan, and the Philistines fell all around him."

She refers to the angel of God as "the destroying angel." p. 128.

Speaking of the temple at Jerusalem in 70 AD, Ellen White states, "Angels of God were sent to do the work of destruction, so that one stone [of the temple] was not left upon another that was not thrown down." p. 241.

I could go on and on with such statements. There are many more.

OK, a few more:

Satan was compelled-- forced, if you will-- to stay on earth, to be in the midst of the warring elements, all during the Flood. p. 70Ellen White uses the English words, God "thrust Satan out of heaven." p. 37.

The book also contains good evidence that there is some sort of actual fighting that goes on between good and evil angels. If you have the book, read pp. 69, 105, 208.

Also, we have absolute proof from the Bible and SOP that God directly caused the third Plague on Egypt--dust becoming real "gnats'-- yet we know that Satan cannot possibly create life. Therefore the third plague was most definitly from God, and if that plague was from God, the other plagues were also from God. Otherwise, we are saying Satan was cooperating with God and Moses to free the slaves, and that makes no sense whatsoever, because Satan was working to defeat God's plan. Are we to believe that every time Moses put out his rod, Satan would perform a miracle to help Moses accomplish his objective?

Not likely.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Robert]

And to anyone who believes her writings, they are irrefutable.

The question has been asked me, "Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?" I answer that He has light that is new to us, and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth [the Bible]. We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

[Robert]

When it is said that "the wrath of God abideth on them," we know that it simply means that there comes the time when God has no choice but to withdraw His restraining power...

Yes, I know that, but the opposition looks at the wrath of God differently....

[Robert]

Some there are who say that Job was actually a self-righteous sinner who needed to learn a lesson about his self-centeredness, and that this is the reason for Job's suffering. But that doesn't make sense. Both the narrator and God Himself describe Job as being "perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil."

[Robert]

I believe anyone who reads it thoughtfully will see proof that Ellen White did NOT teach that God WON'T destroy the wicked by fire.

We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. [CW 37]

[John317]

Was it also cruel for God to send His angels to remove the wheels of the Egyptians' chariots and to drown them when they were trying to go back to shore? See The Truth About Angels, p. 96.

It's best to leave it up to God how he punishes the wicked. Ellen White says that very thing.

What will you do when you finally find out for sure that God did use force at times and that God has destroyed people and will destroy the wicked? This is the problem. If you convince yourself that a just God will not do those things, then your only alternative will then be to reject Him. For how can you worship, admire, love, and joyfully obey a God whom you are convinced is cruel and evil? What you don't see is that His justice, mercy and love are the basis of the destruction of the wicked. I'm sure you've seen the SOP quotes which speak to this.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I believe anyone who reads it thoughtfully will see proof that Ellen White did NOT teach that God WON'T destroy the wicked by fire.

Quote:

ROBERT, quoting Ellen White: We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us. [1SM 401]

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. [CW 37]

OK, that's how I thought some would repond to those clear SOP statements quoted in my previous post. Ellen White was wrong, then, from your viewpoint, but at least you cannot say that her words don't mean what they clearly do communicate.

But getting back to the quotes you give here, she is not saying that her writings regarding what God had shown her in vision is in error. If you look at the context of her statements, you will see that she is saying SDAs shouldn't think they have all the truth and that SDAs should be willing to give up their favorite opinions if the Bible proves that those opinions are wrong.

Another thing is that the lessons God wants us to learn won't ever contradict the plain teachings of the Bible, as if the Bible is not a dependable guide to truth. There are those who are saying that we can know the truth better than the prophets and apostles. I think that's foolishness and dangerous. Once we put our thoughts and ideas above those that God revealed to us through the prophets, we're headed down the wrong road.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I already did. Try reading the first post on this page.

So, you are performing "Complete obedience" because if not, according to EGW, "the wrath of God abideth on" you. Shouldn't that scare you?

Rob, believers don't render God complete obedience in order to earn salvation or in order to be justifed. I thought you knew this by now because we've been over it many times. Study 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 6.

Complete obedience does not mean believers don't make mistakes or ever commit a sin. But they don't intentionally do those things and if they do them, they are repentant, confess their sins, and ask Christ for His forgiveness and power to let Him live His life out in them. God is not looking for you and me to be absolutely sinless; He's looking for spiritual growth and maturity, commitment, loyalty and faithfulness to Him, a willingness to listen and to change when the Holy Spirit convicts us of areas in our lives that are out of harmony with God.

[John317]

Quote:

Robert, quoting EG White:

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

We need to read all that she says on this subject and to read them in context, considering time and place.

When you do, you will find that she's not saying people can't depend on her writings to tell the truth that God revealed to her through visions and dreams.

She's saying that we shouldn't ever come to the point where we believe we have all the truth and that there is no new truth that God has for us. But the new truth won't contradict or set aside the old truth that God has confirmed through His Holy Spirit. One of those truths that Ellen White specifically refers to as a truth that should never be moved or changed is the Investigative Judgment, which just happens to be one of the main doctrines that some SDAs and former SDA are trying to do away with. She said this would occur, along with a Satanic attack against the Testimonies in order to lessen people's confidecne in the Spirit of prophecy. I think you'd agree with me that this is happening now. I have no doubt this move will intensify in the coming years before Christ returns.

Notice in the above sentences the words, "cherished view" and "opinion." Her writings are not "cherished views" or "opinions."

Since she wrote that, the church has given up cherished, Arian views of Christ and also wrong opinions regarding Armageddon. In both cases, the church was influenced to change largely as a result of Ellen White's writings. The changes weren't made to agree with her, but her writings point people to the Bible, and in their study they found they had been wrong on those subjects for many years.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Some there are who say that Job was actually a self-righteous sinner who needed to learn a lesson about his self-centeredness, and that this is the reason for Job's suffering. But that doesn't make sense. Both the narrator and God Himself describe Job as being "perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil."

Quote:

ROBERT: Can't see the forest for the trees, huh John?

This is no real answer. Anyone can repeat a slogen. What you need to do is show persuasive, valid evidence from the text itself that what you claim is true, and you have yet to do this. Jack Sequeira hasn't either. I've studied what he says about it, and it doesn't hold water.

Quote:

ROBERT: For these people, God did not tell the truth about Job but instead God is merely reflecing Job's self-righteous, sinful thoughts and feelings regarding himself.

How do you know this? What's your evidence?

And how, then, do you explain that the narrator tells us in the first line of the book that Job "was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil"? These are also, of course, the same words that God uses to describe Job, further evidence that God is not merely reflecting Job's own, faulty opinions of himself, as if Job is operating under an illusion.

It's one thing to put these words in the mouth of a character in a story-- such as God-- but you asking us to conclude that the narrator is telling us something that is untrue. That means the story is being told by an unreliable narrator, someone who does not always tell the truth. Is that what you have in the book of Job-- a story that you can't depend on because it is not always honestly told? As he reads the story, does the reader have to ask himself continually if the narrator is telling the truth?

Remember that the first lines are not told from the viewpoint of either God or Job but from an omnicient narrator, a story-teller who knows everything.

How do you explain this? Unless you can, you're in kind of a bind as far as defending your take on the book of Job is concerned.

Your thesis is really weak from many viewpoints. The whole story loses one of its primary reasons for being told if Job is suffering for something he's done or because God is trying to teach Job a lesson.

For another thing, your thesis-- or rather, I should say the thesis of Jack Sequeira-- is without foundation because it depends on a false premise that Job is claiming to be sinless. Which is nonsense. He even talks about the sins he's committed before. But Job's whole protestation is against the idea that he's committed some great, secret sin that explains his suffering.

Quote:

No, that's your twist...your spin. No one is calling God a liar. So stop the nonsense.

Of course you are not saying, "God is a liar." But when you think about what you're saying God is telling Satan, I think you will see that this is what God is actually doing. After all, God is not quoted as saying something like, "Job thinks he's perfect and upright." No, God says no such thing, and neither does the narrator. On the contrary the context shows that God is proud of Job and has confidence that Job won't let God down. Why would this be if Job is self-righteous? Why don't we find any indication that God considers Job self-righteous?

To say that God told Satan that Job is perfect and upright when God knew pefectly well that Job was just another self-righteousness sinner-- to say this, I believe, is tantamount to saying that God lied. It would be different if God had said, "My servant Job thinks he's just and righteous, but...." Then, for sure, it would be a totally different story than the one in our Bibles.

There's nothing that I've seen to show that God feels Job is not "perfect and upright." (Remember that "perfect" is not being used in an absolute sense.)

Quote:

ROBERT: I have always stated that God presented Job as Job presented himself to God. After all Job couldn't go to the gates of heaven where Satan and God had this conversation.

Yes, I know you have presented it that way-- which is identical to the way Jack Sequeira presents it; and of course it is in completely harmony with his theology. But the problem is that, for the reasons cited above, he has no really solid biblical evidence for believing it.

By the way, have you read any commentary or writer on the book of Job that takes the same view of it as Jack Sequeira does?