"war in heaven" - real or metaphorical?

[pnattmbtc]

The only thing that doesn't make sense, is that you refuse to take the Bible as it reads, like God's prophet has told you to.

But you do. And only you. All who disagree with you refuse to take the Bible as it reads. And there are many in the forum just like you, disagreeing with each other, thinking that only they take the Bible as it reads. Consider Mark and his argument that the heart is literal. He makes the same argument you are making.

It's not much of an argument, is it?

[Guest]

No he's not taking it as it reads. We have shown evidence that heart means mind. He just refuses to see it.

[pnattmbtc]

I agree that his position is incorrect, but I wouldn't say it's because he's not taking the Bible as it reads. The Bible is a spiritual book. It takes spiritual discernment to understand. People disagree with what it means, even honest, sincere people, who want to understand it and do God's will.

[Guest]

If someone shows me the kind of proof we've shown, where EGW says: This is black and that is white, and heart means mind, then I have to go with the evidence.

[teresaq]

The only thing that doesn't make sense, is that you refuse to take the Bible as it reads, like God's prophet has told you to.

Gen 15:12 And when the sun was going down,....

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down,...

Gen 32:31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him,...

Jdg 5:31...be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. ...

2Sa 12:11 ... in the sight of this sun.

Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars

Psa 19:4 In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Psa 104:19 .. the sun knoweth his going down.

Psa 148:3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

Ecc 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psa 98:8 Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together

Isa 55:12 the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

[Guest]

You take it as it reads as long as it doesn't do violence to the natural laws of common sense. If it does, then you take it figuratively. Such as:

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, that's what I do.

[teresaq]

then you believe the books of daniel and revelation should be read literally?

you do remember that the catholic church believed the sun revolved around the earth and killed anyone who said different, right? the bible did say so. im not aware of the papacy having changed that teaching.

[Guest]

A lot of symbolism is used, but the parts that are not, that can be plainly understood without symbols, yes. For instance:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[teresaq]

The only thing that doesn't make sense, is that you refuse to take the Bible as it reads, like God's prophet has told you to.

[John317]

So God fights...He compels...He forces???

God is portrayed as a great warrier in Scripture. Does this mean he uses bow and arrow or rifles or bombs? Of course not, but the Bible plainly shows God as "fighting." He has "fought" through humans. "The Lord fought for Israel" (Joshua 10: 14). The prophetess, Mariam, was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, "The Lord is a man of war" (Exodus 15: 3). "The Lord mighty in war" (Ps. 24: 8). Notice that these are references to actual wars in which people were killed. Indeed, the Lord-- the preincarnate Christ, "Jesus mild & meek"-- was literally the "Captain of the Lord's army," as shown in Joshua 5: 15; 8: 1,2; Judges 1: 2; 6: 16; 6: 11-16, and all of chapter 7. Read Rev. 19: 11-21 for a description of Christ as One who "makes war" and the results of that future war in which untold billions literally die and are devoured by the birds who are invited to "the great supper of God."

He gave orders to humans to kill other humans. See: Deut. 9: 3; 20: 12, 13, 16-18; 13: 5,9, 15; 18: 20; 19: 11-13; Joshua 7: 10-27; 8: 24-29; 10: 8-14, 25-40; 11: 12-15, etc.

Example: "So Joshua struck the whole land... and all their kings. He left nothing remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, JUST AS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL COMMANDED" (Joshua 10: 40)

Yes, He has certainly compelled and forced. This cannot be denied without denying the truthfulness and reliability of the following inspired record:

1) God forced Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and put an angel-guard at the entrance in order to prevent them from gaining access to the Tree of life. Gen. 3: 23-24.

2) Gen. 6: 5-7; 8: 21; 2 Peter 2: 5 says that God decided to destroy everyone except Noah and his family because of the constant wickedness of mankind whom He had created.

3) Gen. 11 shows that God used force to disperse humanity over the face of the earth. God said, "'Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so they may not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off buidling the city."

4) Exodus 4: 21-23 says that God commanded Moses to tell the king of Egypt that if he refused to allow Israel to leave Egypt, He would kill the the king's first-born son. "Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold I will kill your firstborn son.'"

NOTE: In whatever way you interpret this, the fact remains that God used force to have Israel freed from Egyptian slavery. Israel was not freed because of the willing decision of Egypt but through force.

5)Gen. 18 & 19; 2 Peter 4: 6 says that God used force to stop the constant sinning of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

6) God used force against the worshipers of false gods by ordering His people to destroy the idols and altars and often to destroy the worshipers themselves. Ex. 23: 23, 24; 32: 25-28; Deut. 12: 2, 3; 1 Kings 18: 40.

7) Jude 14, 15 says that "the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

8) 1 Cor. 6: 9; Rev. 20: 9; 21: 8, 27; 22: 15; Romans 2: 6-11 shows that God will not allow people who do not repent of their sins but continue doing evil to enter the kingdom of God. Instead God finally destroys those who persist in rebelling against Him.

NOTE: Again, in whatever way one interprets this, the fact remains that God is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the wicked as well as the salvation of the righteous. It is His will that sin and sinners are finally no more and that the righteous live throughout eternity. If this were not true, the book of Revelation would have no reason to give all the praise to God for bringing about the end of sin and Satan and the salvation of the righteous. Inspiration says these things "must take place" (Rev. 1: 1; 22: 6).

While it's true that individuals are free to choose Satan or God, yet God has decreed that Satan and all who choose to follow his way will be eternally destroyed and that those who choose Christ will have eternal salvation. See Rev. 5: 9-14; 7: 11, 12; 12: 18; 18 & 19; 21: 5-8; 22:6. "The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and [the time came] for destroying the destroyers of the earth."

"'Hallelujah [lit. "praise Jah, or Yahweh"], you people! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, BECAUSE his judgments are true and just; BECAUSE He has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.' Once more they cried out, 'Hallelujah [lit. "praise Jah, or Yahweh"], you people! And the smoke from her goes up forever and ever.'"(Rev. 19: 1-3).

Thus God is clearly responsible for the final end of sin and sinners. The rebellion is not overcome by force but by God's demonstration of love, yet at various points throughout the great controversy-- including the destruction of the wicked-- God does use His power to accomplish His will. The important point here is that God doesn't force or compel anyone to believe or to be lost or saved. God's purposes are fulfilled without violating the free will of human beings in regard to our ultimate destiny.

[Robert]

Quote:

take the Bible as it reads

Click, but only if you can handle it....

Is 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Note to self: Self, the above was ignored, why?

Rob

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

take the Bible as it reads

Okay, let's do just this:

Click here

Ex 4:11 Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?

Note to self, again. Why did it get ignored?

[Robert]

The prophetess, Mariam, was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, "The Lord is a man of war" (Exodus 15: 3).

[pnattmbtc]

A lot of symbolism is used, but the parts that are not, that can be plainly understood without symbols, yes. For instance:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

This is an interesting verse to pick. First of all, the phrase "that do his commandments" many translations have "that have washed their robes." (I agree with the KJV myself, but many prefer the other translation.)

Secondly, "may have right to the tree of life" could be seen as symbolic, meaning "may have eternal life" or "live eternally." (I don't personally see it this way, but many do. Even though I believe there's a literal tree of life that the saints will partake of, I don't this is the main point.)

Thirdly "may enter into the gates of the city" may also be seen as symbolic as "may enter into heaven." "Gates of the city" is something which would have made sense to those reading it at the time. This isn't to say that there won't be a literal city (i.e. place where many people reside in close proximity), but I'm sure both the city and the gates will be far different than what the readers of the time imagined, or what we do. When we read "city," we tend to think of cities we know, or perhaps pictures by Harry Anderson. In olden times, cities had literal gates, as they were surrounded by walls. Our cities aren't like this. The point here is that it's very common to portray things unfamiliar to us in terms which are familiar. So battles in which heavenly beings participate are portrayed as using swords, since that was the weapon of the time. A prophet seeing a vision now might see the vision with tanks and airplanes and lasers. For the books in heaven, instead of seeing scrolls, they might see computers, videos, and DVD's. There are all sorts of examples which could be given.

At any rate, the point of all this is that it's not so clear just what should be taken literally and what shouldn't be, which is part of the reason why there is as much disagreement as there is in regards to how the Bible should be interpreted.

Another example is the book of Revelation as a whole. Other denominations would be appalled at how symbolic we make the book. For example, the verse that says that Satan is held by chains they take as literal chains, using the principle that a thing should be taken literally if it is possible to do so applies to chains, since a literal chain makes sense. So the chain holding Satan is a literal chain, and the bottomless pit is a literal pit. The 144,000 is a literal number, of literal male Jewish virgins, 12,000 from each tribe, since all of these make sense taken literally.

So while we all agree that the Bible should be taken literally, unless common sense tells us otherwise, how to apply this varies from person to person, which makes it silly to assert something like "You don't take the Bible as it reads, like I do."

Consider the phrase "Christ dwells in our heart by faith." Does Christ literally dwell in our heart? Not if "literally" means "physically" (which is what "literally" does mean here, although many misuse the term, misunderstanding "literally" for "really"; a thing can really happen without it literally happening; for example, we are clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness). Yet some understand "dwell" in a literal sense, some "heart" (or at least one does), whereas for others common sense dictates otherwise.

[Gerr]

Quote:

So God fights...He compels...He forces???

I have already enumerated in a couple of previous posts where God would never use force or compulsion.

It's a waste of time discussing with someone who has already made up his mind that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause the fires of Hell no matter what the Bible says.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I God give you total free will, but if you choose Satan, I'll kill you....

Hmmm?

That's a perversion of what the Bible says. Here is what it says:

Prov 8:36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.”

[BobRyan]

The facinating thing is that the force against force - strength against strength that

we see in Rev 12 - described accurately as "WAR in heaven" where the devil and his angels are "cast out" -- fits perfectly with the WAR context

we see in Rev 19 when Christ appears at His second coming and all the commanders of the armies of earth (and presumably including the armies of the "god of this world" 2Cor 4) -- and also fits the WAR context that

we see in Rev 20 when "once again" the "god of this world" takes a stand against God the Son.

In all cases - force is used.

Hence the "strenght against strength" description we see here -

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post326873

So consistent with Rev 12, and Rev 19 and Rev 20

(Notice how I did not need the tired old "you dirty rotten SDA.." invectives to make the point above?)

[Gerr]

When we say the sun or the moon rises or sets, are we talking in riddles?

[pnattmbtc]

I have already enumerated in a couple of previous posts where God would never use force or compulsion.

It's a waste of time discussing with someone who has already made up his mind that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause the fires of Hell no matter what the Bible says.

The Bible says that God killed Saul. The Bible says God moved David to number Israel. The Bible says God sent lying spirits to Ahab. The Bible says God creates evil. The Bible says that God destroyed Jerusalem. The Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. The Bible says God will send strong delusion to those who refuse to believe the truth that they might believe a lie. The Bible says Jesus spoke in parables lest those whom He spoke to should hear and understand and be converted.

I assume that even though the Bible says God caused all of these things, you don't believe that He did. So is it a waste of time discussing things with you?

[BobRyan]

Revelation is full of symbology and metaphors. If there was actually "war in heaven" then Satan is actually a red dragon with seven heads. Also, instead of the meek and mild Jesus, He ruled all nations with a rod of iron. I can't find this concept in my Bible.

Like I said, you can make Revelation say anything you want because of the symbolism.

Rob

That hodge podge idea - is so loosely strung - it means that "if you accept that Jesus is the one speaking in Rev 1 -- then that means all churches are just candles".

"If you accept that -- the devil is real in Rev 12 -- then he must also be a red dragon".

"if you accept that the saints are real in Rev 17 - then the Catholic church must be a real woman riding on a seven-headed animal some place".

"if you accept that the 2nd coming described in Rev 19 is real -- then Jesus has a literal sword coming from his mouth".

"if you accept that the FIRST resurrection in Rev 20 is real - then there is a beast roasting in the lake of fire at that time. What kind of animal is that??"

All such efforts to dance around the force of the actual content of the book of revelation - are hardly going to convince a serious Bible student.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

When we say the sun or the moon rises or sets, are we talking in riddles?

Einstein has already proven beyond a doubt that motion can accurately be described with respect to the frame of reference of the observer.

It is too late now - to suppose that this proven science concept can be ignored such that any description of motion with respect to the frame of reference of the observer (observer's motion taken as zero) is some kind of valid reason to start toying with the Bible and tossing out proven methods of exegesis.

I am glad that the majority of Adventists do not choose such short-distance rabbit trails when it comes to Bible study.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

I have already enumerated in a couple of previous posts where God would never use force or compulsion.

It's a waste of time discussing with someone who has already made up his mind that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause the fires of Hell no matter what the Bible says.

The Bible says that God killed Saul. The Bible says God moved David to number Israel. The Bible says God sent lying spirits to Ahab. The Bible says God creates evil. The Bible says that God destroyed Jerusalem. The Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites. The Bible says God will send strong delusion to those who refuse to believe the truth that they might believe a lie. The Bible says Jesus spoke in parables lest those whom He spoke to should hear and understand and be converted.

Soooooo, are we to take everything the Bible says as parables? Symbols? Metaphors?

What God permits, in His word He takes responsibility for it. Without His permission Saul would not have died. When we violate the laws of our being and get sick, He also takes some responsibility for. That's why the prophet could say that God creates evil. He takes responsibility for even Satan because He created Lucifer.

Quote:

I assume that even though the Bible says God caused all of these things, you don't believe that He did. So is it a waste of time discussing things with you?

If you notice, that comment of mine was in response to Robert. But if you have already made up your mind also that God did not cause the Flood or will not cause hellfire to annihilate the wicked, then, yes, it's just a waste of time.

[Gerr]

Quote:

It appears you're thinking that the first time Satan was cast down, it really was Satan, and it was done by compelling power. The second time, it wasn't really Satan, but it was doubts about Satan. Have I understood you correctly?

Correct.

Quote:

Also you see that both of these instances are conveyed by Rev. 12?

Since the DA chapter "It is Finished" is not an exegesis on Rev 12, her quote of v10 is a homiletic application for the casting out of all doubts and questions about the principles of his rule in the minds of the unfallen universe. Preachers and even the gospel writers do and have done it quite frequently.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Are you referring to this statement?

Luke 10:18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

I don't believe Jesus' statement is referring to the "war" in heaven. Lucifer "fell" from heaven when he aspired to God's throne, Isa 14:12-14. He also fell as a result of his defeat in the war in heaven. He also fell from whatever remnant of favor any beings in the universe may have harbored after they saw what he really was in his conflict with Christ.

No, I was referring to this one, which I quoted earlier in this thread:

Quote:

31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.(John 12:31)

This appears to me to be saying the same thing as the DA 761 statement (this was said shortly before the cross; the cross was the context of Jesus' statement).

It appears you're viewing the war in heaven as a war like the wars on earth, which are resolved by force. But the Great Controversy (aka the war in heaven) is not a war which can be won by force, nor does the concept make sense. As Robert pointed out, if this was a literal war, there should have been deaths and casualties and blood, and weapons involved, like whatever the angel equivalent of swords and guns would be. But it is ridiculous to suppose that a being as intelligent as Satan would engage in a contest of force against God. The whole concept boggles the mind. How dumb would Satan have to be to think he could defeat God on the basis of power? (Also, how dumb would we have to be to think that this is the way Satan thinks. This is really misunderstanding the tactics of the enemy.) No, Satan has never engaged God on these terms, but his weapon is deception. He fights the war by misrepresenting God's character.

The only reason that there were no deaths was because had annihilated Satan and his hosts at that point would have raised greater problems for God. SOP clearly points that out. How can you expel, cast out/down, someone who doesn't want to leave except by force? You say how dumb and ridiculous for Satan to think he could defeat God on the basis of power? How dumb and ridiculous is it for Satan to continue the struggle knowing it's a lost cause? How dumb and ridiculous that after the millennium when he is loosed for a little while, he tries to convince the resurrected hosts of the wicked that they could conquer the Holy City? We are no longer dealing with a rational being!!! We are dealing with an angel gone mad!!! That is why in the end his existence and that of his angels and all the wicked will be eliminated by force!!! The war is NOT won by force of arms but by the force of truth, BUT the elimination/annihilation of the wicked is done by the force of God's power. Hellfire IS power. [