Jason Bourne wrote:Well yes those. And others. How about the flood and the accounts there about God wishing he had never created man? And what about Abraham and his negotiating with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the then following destruction? How about God turning Lot's wide into a pillar of salt for looking back? How about God negotiating with the devil over Job and what God allowed to happen to Job simply to test him? How about Elijah being allowed to send a bear to kill young men who mocked him and the incident with the priest's of Baal? How about Jericho and its destruction? How about God punishing the wandering Israel with snakes because of their murmurings and how about how the Egyptians had the crap beat out of them by God? How about David's conquerings? Are those not factual as well?
I am not sure which of these might be viewed as simply stories and not historical fact because I have not delved into this clearly as much as you have. But it seems pretty clear that there are lots of accounts of God sending wrath on some group of humans or another.
Univeral flood and destruction of Jericho are not historical. Some of the others are too small scale to be amenable to archaeology. David's conquerings are up in the air, investigation into 10th century Israel is currently the focus of intense research and debate. If you asked me a couple of years ago I would have said unhistorical. But, the evidence is trending in the other direction now. I don't see this as causing much of a problem because the stories seem to make clear that there are lots of territorial and political considerations involved. Not that that makes killing o.k., but the realities of politics and having aggressive neighbors sometimes makes war inevitable. The Egyptian story probably didn't happen, at least not on the massive scale as portrayed in Exodus. In any case, I would think that some amount of butt-kicking in exchange for freedom from slavery is more of a
quid pro quo, rather than a serious problem for God's justice. The she bear incident obviously happened as this amazingly accurate historical re-enactment makes clear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jmT35fygcJason Bourne wrote: Mormons are pre-millenialists, thus they believe in the same thing as pre-millenial dispensationalists, they just don't call it the rapture.
If I understand it correctly Mormons simply believe all people will be on earth during the horrible wrath of God is poored out on humans before Jesus comes again. Post Millinialist's believe those who believe in Jesus will be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out on humans.
Briefly here are the options:
Pre-Millenialism: The world gets worse and worse. At some point the righteous are taken up from the Earth. This is what dispensational Christians call "The Rapture." At this point there is what is called the 7 years of tribulation at the end of which Christ returns again and rules for 1000 years. Mormons believe the same thing, without the 7 years of tribulation. Because of this, the second coming and the taking of the righteous are simultaneous for Mormons, thus there is no need to identify the first part of the process as "The Rapture." In Mormon thought, it all gets rolled into one big event called "The Second Coming."
Post-Millenialism: Here, the kingdom of God rules for 1000 years and then Jesus returns at the end of millenium. In this version the millenium is brought about by means that are not overtly miraculous.
A-Millinialism: For various reasons, the book of Revelation is seen as symbolic, thus a 1000 year span of time is simply symbolism that need not represent any state on Earth for any length of time.
As for who believes what, conservative EV's and Mormons tend to be pre-millenialists. Post-Millenialism was favored in the 19th century by EV Christians and some liberal Christians today. Amillenialism is the view of most Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, etc.