In the next few days, I will be starting a series of word studies dealing with NT Greek words which are doctrinally significant. I invite participation and response. The first word, which I don't have time right now to review, but will bring it up in advance to start discussion, is 'hagia.' It is significant with regard to the sanctuary doctrine. If anyone has any thoughts about the word, especially as it occurs in Hebrew 9 etc., by all means please do share them!

Dave

Do we believe ourselves to be more skilled in Greek word translation than the scholars who translated our current Bibles?

mel

Perhaps we are more in tune with what certain words mean to us today and can find a better suited word for modern use than what has been handed down previously.

For example something translated as awful in the 13th century would be intended to be something that was full of awe. In modern use if we are to read the word awful, it usually means quite the opposite.

Studying the original Greek and Hebrew can only be to our benefit, not our detriment.

No matter how skilled translators are or how accurate the very best translations, there is no perfect translation of the entire Bible or even of the New Testament. So it's useful to study original languages in order to do research and in order to know which translations, or which reading in a particular passage, are the most accurate.

But generally speaking, a person does fine if they accept the best translations just as they read. It helps that today there are many very good ones.

Okay, getting to the Greek word 'hagia' . . . There are approximately 16 occurrences of the word in the Greek New Testament. It is the neuter plural nominative form of 'hagios.' It appears without a definite article, and is used as an adjective. Reviewing the various occurrences in the NT (New Testament), I find the word being applied to a variety of subjects and objects, including God's people, their children, and so forth.

In the book of Hebrews, hagia is used as an adjective to desribe the 'Holy Place' in the sanctuary. Interesting, since it is a plural form. For whatever reason, the plural is used. Perhaps John317 can shed some light on why this is so?

At any rate, hagia is used to describe the Holy Place. The Most Holy Place is described as 'hagia hagiwn.' We can see the difference. Now, in v. 12, Christ is described as going once for all into 'ta hagia,' here used with the article. It is NOT the Most Holy, 'hagia hagiwn' but the Holy Place.

Here is what Louw-Nida has to say about this occurrence:

"7.35 hagia, wn n: the interior (either the outer or the inner of the two rooms) of the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple or of the earlier tabernacle or of a corresponding ‘spiritual holy place,’ perhaps regarded as being in heaven - ‘the holy place.’ . . . {Agia ‘a tent was constructed, the outer one...which was called the Holy Place’ He 9.2; . . . ‘he entered once and for all into the Holy Place’ He 9.12. The inner room was more specifically identified by the phrase hagia hagiwn, literally ‘holy of holies’ He 9.3, a Hebrew idiom indicating superlative degree. The inner sanctuary could also be referred to as ‘within the curtain’ . . . He 6.19). See a{gio"a (88.24) and 7.18.
The outer room of the sanctuary may be referred to in some languages as simply ‘the first room of the Holy Temple’ or ‘the first holy room of the Temple.’ The ‘holy of holies’ may be referred to as ‘the most holy place’ or ‘the second holy room of the Temple’ or ‘the interior holy room of the Temple.’ What is important here is the degree of holiness, not so much the actual location within the Temple. It is for this reason that for the ‘holy of holies’ many translators use ‘the most sacred place’ or ‘the very, very sacred room.’ In this type of context the term ‘sacred’ may be rendered as ‘dedicated especially to God’ or ‘consecrated to God.’ "

Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.

After His return to heaven, Christ did indeed enter the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary to begin His mediatorial work. However, He did not enter the Most Holy Place until the Judgment Hour, (Dan. 7; Rev. 14:6,7) Some NT translations take liberties with the text and insert their doctrinal views here, for example the NKJV and NIV, which say that Christ entered the 'Most HOly Place' once for all. However, that is not borne out by the text, or by Louw-Nida.

I would like to invite comment at this point.

Dave

Do you have the original manuscript in hand so you can be absolutely certain of your interpretation?

mel

When Jesus died the dividing curtain was torn. It showed that the first "room" services were finished. The way into the Most Holy was laid open and available to all from that time on. It's in the book of Hebrews.

Nestle-Aland includes the majority reading, minority reading and variant readings. That is what is relied on here. I am using the 26th ed. Perhaps John317 has the 27th ed. (UBS 4th ed.)??

The dividing curtain was torn in the earthly temple, thus signifying the end of the typical services. The way to the MHP in the heavenly sanctuary is open to our High Priest. It does not say that He ENTERED the MHP, but that the way to the MHP was opened. It does say that He entered the Holy Place (Heb. 9:12) Once in the Holy Place, then the time would come when He would enter the MHP. HOwever, that is at the end. The work which goes on in the MHP is a work of judgment, of reviewing the books. That does not occur until just before Jesus returns. Its purpose is to make a final determination regarding whom Jesus will bring home with Him when He returns.

Dave

All this is somewhat over my head and my pay level. BUT ....

I do have a question. And if this question is out of order since it is from Ellen White and the NT Greek ... then just delete it John ... but here goes.

Christians who don’t realize Jesus left the Holy Place for the Most Holy Place in 1844 are actually praying to Satan?

This is the question raised from the reading of Mrs. White as follows ...

The certainty or correctness of an interpretation doesn't depend on having access to the "original manuscript." If you mean "autograph copies," or the manuscript written in the hand of the author, none of the "original manuscripts" of the Bible, whether of the OT or NT, exist. Neither do the original manuscripts of any other ancient book exist. We also do not have the original manuscripts for the books of Ellen White.

That fact alone does not prevent us from being certain of an interpretation unless we have some doubt as to the correct reading of the text. In the case of Hebrews 9: 12, there are no significant variants, or differences, among the hundreds of various manuscripts.

Only one manuscript, identified as "P," dated to the 9th century, reads twn hagiwn. However, it's irrelevant since that reading would not affect the translation. It only changes the case from the accusative plural to the genitive/ablative plural.

Except for that single anomoly, all Greek manuscripts read ta hagia. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt this reading. All authorities are agreed, and every single Greek NT text reads the same.

One of the earliest manuscript of the NT is p46, which is dated to between A.D. 85 to 200. It contains parts of the book of Hebrews. The majority of the text of that book, as translated in most printed Bibles today, is based on 4th and 5th century Codices, the Vaticanus, Siniaticus, and Alexandrinus. In most instances, these Codices are supported in their readings by hundreds of other manuscripts, very often including manuscripts that go back to about A.D. 200. The Bible has by far the best manuscript evidence of any ancient book. Most ancient books, by contrast, are supported by only two or three manuscripts, and these most often are dated many hundreds of years after the original writing.

Redwood, do you have an online link to that which you quoted above? It intrigues me greatly. I don't have a copy of Experienc and Views here at home. Am wondering if I can find it online? I want to read more.

Yes, I have the 27th edition and the UBS 4th edition. Of course both of these use the same basic Greek text, and they are identical to the 26th edition.

Redwood, I am familiar with that passage, having read it in the past. If I recall correctly, she is referring to a group of Christian believers at the time referenced, who REJECTED the sanctuary doctrine, but claimed to continue believing in God and the Bible.

Dave

Hi Cricket. No. I am not aware of it being online but it may be.

No, I don't believe that one should take her words to mean she is saying all Christians today who are not aware that Christ is in the Most Holy Place are actually praying to Satan. See Ms 4, 1883 in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 63, 64.

The passage is explained in Early Writings, pp. 242 to 261. Ellen White is talking about those who rejected the truth. They were left in spiritual darkness. This is also in the Great Controversy, p. 422-489.

GC 430, 431---

It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of the atonement who receive the benefits of His mediation in their behalf, while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of ministration are not benefited thereby. The Jews who rejected the light given at Christ's first advent, and refused to believe on Him as the Saviour of the world, could not receive pardon through Him. When Jesus at His ascension entered by His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary to shed upon His disciples the blessings of His mediation, the Jews were left in total darkness to continue their useless sacrifices and offerings. The ministration of types and shadows had ceased. That door by which men had formerly found access to God was no longer open. The Jews had refused to seek Him in the only way whereby He could then be found, through the ministration in the sanctuary in heaven. Therefore they found no communion with God. To them the door was shut. They had no knowledge of Christ as the true sacrifice and the only mediator before God; hence they could not receive the benefits of His mediation.

The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our merciful High Priest. In the typical service, when the high priest entered the most holy place, all Israel were required to gather about the sanctuary and in the most solemn manner humble their souls before God, that they might receive the pardon of their sins and not be cut off from the congregation. How much more essential in this antitypical Day of Atonement that we understand the work of our High Priest and know what duties are required of us.

Men cannot with impunity reject the warning which God in mercy sends them. A message was sent from heaven to the world in Noah's day, and their salvation depended upon the manner in which they treated that message. Because they rejected the warning, the Spirit of God was withdrawn from the sinful race, and they perished in the waters of the Flood. In the time of Abraham, mercy ceased to plead with the guilty inhabitants of Sodom, and all but Lot with his wife and two daughters were consumed by the fire sent down from heaven. So in the days of Christ. The Son of God declared to the unbelieving Jews of that generation: "Your house is left unto you desolate." Matthew 23:38. Looking down to the last days, the same Infinite Power declares, concerning those who "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved": "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. As they reject the teachings of His word, God withdraws His Spirit and leaves them to the deceptions which they love.

But Christ still intercedes in man's behalf, and light will be given to those who seek it. Though this was not at first understood by Adventists, it was afterward made plain as the Scriptures which define their true position began to open before them.

I hope these quotes help:

I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844. All who saw the light of the first and second angels' messages and rejected that light, were left in darkness. And those who accepted it and received the Holy Spirit which attended the proclamation of the message from heaven, and who afterward renounced their faith and pronounced their experience a delusion, thereby rejected the Spirit of God, and it no longer pleaded with them.

Those who did not see the light, had not the guilt of its rejection. It was only the class who had despised the light from heaven that the Spirit of God could not reach. And this class included, as I have stated, both those who refused to accept the message when it was presented to them, and also those who, having received it, afterward renounced their faith. These might have a form of godliness, and profess to be followers of Christ; but having no living connection with God, they would be taken captive by the delusions of Satan. These two classes are brought to view in the vision--those who declared the light which they had followed a delusion, and the wicked of the world who, having rejected the light, had been rejected of God. No reference is made to those who had not seen the light, and therefore were not guilty of its rejection.--Ms 4, 1883 in Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 63, 64.

Also:

In mid-February, 1845, a vision was given to Ellen White at Exeter, Maine, to which she refers in her letter to Elder Bates. In this she was directed to events transpiring in heaven. She was shown the entry of Christ into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. An account of what was revealed to her at this time appeared first in print in the Day Star of March 14, 1846, was reprinted by James White in the broadside dated April 6, 1846, and is in Early Writings on pages 54-56. Here is the account of what she saw, reproduced from the broadside:

In February, 1845, I had a vision of events commencing with the Midnight Cry. I saw a throne and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired his lovely person. The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself. He said he had, but I could not behold it, for said he if you should once behold the glory of his person you would cease to exist. Before the throne I saw the Advent people, the church, and the world. I saw a company, bowed down before the throne, deeply interested, while the most of them stood up disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus; then he would look to his Father, and appeared to be pleading with Him. A light would come from the Father to the Son, and from the son to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son, and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light; many came out from under it and immediately resisted it; others were careless and did not cherish the light, and it moved off from them; some cherished it, and went and bowed down with the little praying company. This company all received the light, and rejoiced in it, as their countenances shone with its glory. And I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a flaming Charriot go into the Holy of Holies, within the veil, and did sit. There I saw thrones that I had never seen before. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and the most of those who were bowed down arose with Him; and I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who rose up when Jesus did, kept
their eyes fixed on Him as He left the throne and led them out a little way.--Then He raised His right arm and we heard his lovely voice saying, "Wait here--I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom; keep your garments spotless, and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive you to myself." And I saw a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming fire, and Angels were all around it as it came where Jesus was. He stepped into the chariot and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, as He was standing before the Father, a great High Priest. On the hem of His garment was a bell and pomegranate. Then Jesus shew me the difference between faith and feeling. And I saw those who rose up with Jesus send up their faith to Him in the Holiest, and pray--my Father give us thy Spirit. Then Jesus would breathe upon them the Holy Ghost. In the breath was light, power, and much love, joy and peace. Then I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it.--Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God; I saw them look up to the throne and pray, my Father give us thy Spirit; then Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God's children. I saw one after another leave the company who were praying to Jesus in the Holiest, and go and join those before the throne, and they at once received the unholy influence of Satan.

Much if not most of Experience and Views can be found in Early Writings.

I found the quote you refer to and pasted it on my previous post. I found it at ellengwhite.org under the following work:

ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE SHUT DOOR QUESTION

A Review of the
The Experience of Early Seventh-day Adventist
Believers in its Historical Context[1]
(Revised May 9, 1982)
Prepared by Arthur L. White

When you get to the EllenWhite site, google the site for the words, "Jesus in chariot borne to the Holiest."

This is an example of where exegesis is helpful in terms of developing a theology. If exegesis drives theology, then it is clear from the words as they read that Paul refers to Christ entering the Holy Place upon His ascension. That is also consistent with the understanding that this Earth is the Outer Court, and that Christ completed His ministry in the Courtyard upon His death on the antitypical Altar of Burnt Offering, the cross. Thus, He would then leave the Outer Court and enter the Holy Place "not made with hands," that is in heaven, to begin His intercessory ministry. It is further consistent with the Old Testament schedule of feasts.

Desmond Ford, and the greatest part of evangelical Christianity, arrayed themselves against this plain teaching of the Word, for theological reasons. Theology has driven exegesis, thus the attempt to have the text say something it doesn't, on dubious grounds, and in violation of the teaching of the rest of Scripture.

Dave

The word is used in the plural neuter because the Hebrew sanctuary had two compartments, and also because, as Hebrews 9: 1-4 explains, it held the numerous holy things, such as the alter of incense, the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the ark of the covenant. Therefore the entire sanctuary is referred to, literally, as the holies, or holy places. Even when referring to only the first compartment, or holy place, the original Greek has the plural, "holies." The only time the word occurs in the singular is at Hebrews 9: 1, te hagion.

Hebrew 9: 2, which unquestionably refers to the first apartment, also uses the plural, hagia, without the definite article.

Only Codex Vaticanus includes the definite article, ta hagia.

Also, interestingly enough, p46, the Codex Alexandrinus, the uncorrected, original copy of Codex D, and a few Latin texts, read "holy of holies," which, however, is an obvious error.

As an educational tool, I would like to invite consideration of the Ford/evangelical treatment of Heb. 9:12. John317, how could they get 'Most Holy Place' out of ta hagia, when the MHP is specifically identified in the same chapter, by the same writer, as hagia hagiwn?

*just jumping in to say thank you to Redwood and John317 about my inquiry*

Just hope those references and quotes helped.

Ford based his belief on his theological convictions rather than on an analysis of the Greek at Hebrews 9: 12.

The text simply teaches that Jesus Christ entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary upon His ascension to heaven. It is saying He entered directly into the very presence of the Father.

It's very interesting to note in this connection that the book of Daniel, chapter 7, verses 9 to 14, shows that the Father's throne has wheels. Why? Something only has wheels if it is created to move. So the Father's throne is not in a permanent location. It has moved. Now the Father is seated and waiting for judgment to begin. He is waiting for Someone. Sure enough, verse 13 says "one like the Son of Man" is seen "coming" to the Ancient of Days, and it is only then that the "dominion and glory and a kingdom" is given to the Son of Man. According to verses 25 and 26, this judgment session doesn't begin until after the end of the prophetic time, which I believe came to an end in 1798.

Yes, exactly. That is what I too would say. With Ford, theology drove exegesis--which is exactly the opposite of what it should be.



True enough. The NASB words it, "He entered the holy places." The NASB translation committee chose to go with the plural--although the same word is also used specifically to describe the Holy Place. Nevertheless, either call is correct. Christ entered the 'holy places,' the heavenly sanctuary. I suspect that devotees of Ford might argue that hagia can be used to describe either compartment. Generally speaking, that may be true. HOWEVER, the writer of Hebrews, in the very passage at issue, describes the MHP as hagia hagiwn.

Another argument which could be presented has to do with Christ as the Veil. However, He is the Veil in the Holy Place as well as in the MHP. In cases where an 'either/or' choice is available, one must look to the rest of Scripture. When one does so, it is very clear that the earthly sanctuary was a copy of the heavenly. The courtyard ministry prepared the way for the holy place ministry. The holy place ministry prepared the way for the MHP ministry. Christ completed the courtyard ministry just prior to his ascension. He went from the courtyard, the earth, to the holy place in the heavenly sanctuary. It is NOT POSSIBLE to skip from the courtyard to the MHP. But that is what the Fordite theology has done.

Why? Because of hostility toward the investigative judgment, which is what occurs in the MHP. The investigative judgment is necessary preparation for the executive judgment, which results in the entry of the saved into the heavenly Canaan and the execution of the lost. The whole idea of 'it doesn't matter what you do' is intricately connected with the Fordite theology. Accept Jesus, and the 'race has been run, the battle won.' All that's left is, 'Welcome home, children!' Yet, that theology does violence to Scripture.



True enough. Jesus could be present with the Father and at the same time carrying forward His Holy Place mediatorial ministry.

Dave

Without a doubt, the end of the papacy's reign of terror in 1798 signaled the beginning of the endtimes. However, 'prophetic time' as I understand it came to an end in 1844. That is the endpoint of the longest time prophecy in the Bible. There is no more prophetic time: "Time shall be no more." And that is why it is inappropriate to attempt to set dates for any event after 1844.

What I find particularly interesting is that in all but one occurrence in N-A 26th ed., the word hagia occurs as an adjective, without the article. The exception is Heb. 9:12. I am at home now, and don't have the Greek text available here, but as I recall, the grammar in v. 2 seemed a bit convoluted. The emphasis seemed to be on 'holy', perhaps the holiness of the earthly sanctuary. IOW the sanctuary was holy, and the first room was called holy (adjective, no article.) The inner room was hagia hagiwn (no article), or most holy, we might say. It is so interesting to compare the Greek text with the several English translations. In an effort to make readable English, they often do add some words. Doing so can change the import of the message, to varying degrees. But that is just my opinion. John317, as our resident Greek scholar, what think you of that?

Dave

Incidentally, perhaps the most intriguing occurrence of hagia, at least to me, is that in Acts 7:33, 'the place whereon you stand is holy (plural) ground.' I keep wondering if there isn't some other significance to this use of the plural, as well in reference to the sanctuary. Could it have to do with the plurality of the Godhead, the Trinity? Just a thought. Any thoughts about that? John317?

Dave

Yes, you're right, I agree. I was referring to the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 7: 25, the same period of time spoken of in Rev. 13: 5. Those prophetic time periods have already been fulfilled. God is not waiting for any more prophetic time to pass before Christ returns.

Any time a word which does not occur in the original is added by the translator, it is best to take a good look at it to see if it is correct or if there is another, better way to understand the verse. That's why I prefer texts that identify the added words, such as occurs in NKJV and NASV.

Just because a word does not have a definite article doesn't mean it should be understood as simply an adjective. It was not unusual for the definite article not to occur when the adjective functions as a substantive. That is most likely the case of the name for the inner room of the sanctuary. One reason the article is not used is when an expression has become technicalized or stereotyped. This is due to the tendency toward abbreviation of frequent or customary phraseology.

It's interesting to note, by the way, that in Lev. 6: 25, 29, 31, 36 and so on, the burnt offerings are described as "most holy," and in each instance, the LXX uses the words, "hagia hagiwn," the same word that is used in Hebrews 9: 3 in reference to the second apartment of the sanctuary.

At Acts 7: 33 and Exodus 3:5 (LXX), the words translated "holy ground" are both in the singular. The adjective there agrees in number and gender with the noun, earth (Gk, gee).

What's probably confusing here is the fact that hagia may be either singular or plural. It is determined by the noun it modifies. hagia with the acute accent over the iota is singular feminine. This is the word that we have in Acts7:33. The same word is plural feminine when the acute accent is found over the alpha. This is how it occurs in Hebrews 9: 2, for instance. It can also be dative singular feminine when the acute accent mark is over the iota and is accompanied with an iota-subscript.

As for why the sanctuary is referred to by the plural, hagia, it is used in the plural neuter because the Hebrew sanctuary had two compartments, and also because, as Hebrews 9: 1-4 explains, it held the numerous holy things, such as the alter of incense, the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the ark of the covenant. Therefore the entire sanctuary is referred to, literally, as the holies, or holy places. Even when referring to only the first compartment, or holy place, the original Greek has the plural, "holies."

I don't see any connection between the fact that it is in the plural and the fact that the Godhead is a Trinity. I'm not denying that this could be related but I don't see any evidence of it. What evidence of a connection have you found?

Ahhh, it was just speculation. In fact, I had not yet looked up the Acts 7:33 in Nestle-Aland--just noted its occurrence. Hadn't gotten that far yet. I do not yet have Greek study tools at home, so would have to get back to the office to look that up. One of the limitations of trying to do this at home. I had also planned to check the LXX when I got there. But you have already pointed out the difference. Thanks!

Do you also have the Majority Text with the apparatus and manuscript evidence supporting each reading?

Yes, I have used that in the past. Been moving stuff from old the office to the new office the last few days, and elsewhere! Gotta go through those boxes. I had a hard copy. The online tools I have don't include the apparatus or ID the manuscripts.

Dave

Was your Majority Text edited by Hodges and Farstad? If so, that's a wonderful text. It gives a wealth of information in the apparatus. I actually use both it and the Critical Text. I am very partial toward the most recent Nestle-Aland. It's apparatus is by far superior to the one given in the UBS 4th Edition.

Did you notice a change at 1 Cor. 10: 9? There was an important change made between the 2nd edition of UBS and the 3rd edition, and between the 25th edition of Nestle-Aland and the 26th. Up until then, virtually all the printed Greek texts had read Kurios, but then with the more recent texts, they were changed to read Xristos. That is very significant. It conforms to the Majority Text and the KJV. Of course, most importantly, it means that the children of Israel were in rebellion against Christ in the wilderness.

This change was made on the basis of manuscript P46, one of the oldest ms. It has been dated to between AD 85 and 150. If the "Jehovah's Witnesses" would accept that evidence (which, by the way, they refer to in the study edition of their New World Translation), they would have to change some of their theology; but I am confident this won't ever happen.

As a result of that change, most of the modern Bible's being translated read "Christ" instead of "Lord." For instance, I noticed this change in such new translations as the NRSV, the TNIV, the NAB, the Standard English Version and the Christian Standard Bible. I expect the next edition of NASB will also adopt that reading.

I also have the texts of the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexanderinus. A friend of mine gave me a first edition of Tischendorf's Greek NT, which of course is based on the Sinaiticus. I've got to get it rebound soon. I enjoy comparing all of them. I haven't seen a single reading yet that I believe leads to false doctrine or would cause someone to reject the true gospel. I believe that God has kept the NT from such error as would prevent anyone from knowing the truth if only they are willing to seek for it.

Yes, I have studied both the 2nd and the 3rd editions. I am familiar with Nestle-Aland 26th. What you mention is an exciting development, at 1 Cor. 10:9. I have a CD with a number of Greek texts, which can be compared in different windows. I gotta find it! Will be updating my hard copy to the most recent Nestle-Aland (27th ed. I recall) Anxious to do that as finances permit. As for the JW's, I can show the Divinity of Christ, have a good study on it. Seems like the folks get pretty attached to their beliefs sometimes, though.

Dave

I gotta get one of the CDs you mention. That would sure be helpful to me. I also want to get a program so I can type and print out Greek script.

Have you seen this wonderful source: http://whnac.biblos.com/revelation/11.htm

It gives you access to the main Greek printed texts and also to a lot of important commentaries and translations.

The only problem is you can't copy and paste these Greek texts onto CA threads for some reason. When you do, it just shows a bunch of numbers. Maybe they would work on a CA for Greek speaking SDA.

Okay, I just looked up for the first time Acts 7:33. Indeed, it is a nominative adjective, modifying a singular subject, and has the iota accented. However, I am still not satisfied in regard to Heb. 9:2. I note that proth matches skhnh, no problem there. The pronoun htis also matches, fem. sing. nom. Having said that, the plural nom. adjective hagia is modifying skhnh . . . h proth specifically, IN WHICH is the table of shewbread, the lampstand, etc. Hagia therefore is NOT modifying the lampstand, shewbread, etc., BUT skhnh . . . h proth, singular. The verb also matches, legetai, 3rd per. singular--which IS called holy. Everything matches otherwise. In this case, either Paul's grammar may be less than perfect, OR there is some larger application of hagia, for it to be plural. KIM that the FIRST (proth) room is being described, specifically, so by 'larger application' I am not referring to the skhnh itself or to grammatical issues, but to possible spiritual applications an definitions.

Dave

Do you mean "ee protee"? Or "ee prothesis"?

Personal preference for me is to use 'h' instead of 'ee.' Am at home right now, but I believe the verse in question reads, 'h proth,' in N-A 26th.

Dave