User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100810165251

Yank, your remarks of the 9th escaped me, but I'll take care of them now. :-)

To assume exaggeration is to presume on an eye witness, or tradition at least, that was far closer to the event than you are. When judging the record, we have to go on more than just our assumptions. Your example, though technically possible, was presented as a vision. That is, it was MEANT to be a word picture pointing to a real event. It was a "metaphor" - symbolic of the raising up of a people from among the spiritually dead (those living without faith in God). However, the rebuilding of the human bodies, and the restoring of souls to them, is literally going to happen as well. It is no "exaggeration." Since Jesus rose from the dead, so will everyone else - either to everlasting life with God, or to a state of everlasting punishment. (Daniel 12:2, 1 Cor. 15:1-19, Rev. 20:11-15)

I assume you meant to say "couldn't have happened as the Bible says they did. To that I need only refer to your own statement - some things acutally are "miraculous" - Creation from nothing, floods and or drying up of waters, a pagan hearing and obeying an invisible God, God raising up a people, God living among mankind bodily, the Resurrection, to name just a few.  These things are impossible with man, but totally in line with God who exists eternally greater than what He has made.

The point about cruel and bloodthirst people being "mandatory," is interesting. It was not so much that it was necessary to survive - the evolutionary notion of the survival of the fittest, ancient "social Darwinism" - but rather it is the necessary consequence of mankind living for himself rather than trusting God. It is what we call "original sin" -- the flood recorded in Genesis (and referred to in most ancient mythologies) is an instance of a more merciful way of dealing with that problem. That death was quick, and not without warning. The cruelty of warriors and tyrants throughout history has been used to accomplish the same goal -- even upon the people of Israel when they turned away from God and to false gods.

And about the supposed "warden" of hell, you are accepting a common, but erroneous view of the fallen angel. Lucifer is indeed a translation of his original name, meaning "Light Bearer" - probably referring to his actual appearance (even now he can appear to be an "angel of light" - 2 Cor. 11:14). However, his designation is usually now simply "Satan" - the Adversary. He is the enemy who in time past stood in the presense of God defiantly claiming mankind as his own. Even now, though bound to the earth and unable to keep multitudes from being blind to the reality of God (Rev. 20:1-3), he has his minions, other fallen angels, to work as much havoc as they can. One day, at the Resurrection, they will join those whom they had led, but in an especially "deep" isolation from them (Rev. 20:10).


 * The above interpretation of Rev. 20:1-3 is consistent with the purpose of the binding. The "bottomless pit" is a way of saying that in this present age (after Jesus' resurrection) Satan is not able to stand in court, as it were, to accuse mankind of their rightful guilt before God.  God is now, in a different way, present throughout the earth, bringing in multitudes that would never have known Him otherwise.